PROPOSAL: Erection of five detached dwellings with associated infrastructure including detached single storey garages, landscaping and construction of two new accesses from Shurdington Road.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

68.8          This application was for erection of five detached dwellings with associated infrastructure including detached single storey garages, landscaping and construction of two new accesses from Shurdington Road.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 March 2024.

68.9          The Senior Planning Officer advised that a further late representation, as set out at Appendix 1, had been received the previous night from County Highways recommending an additional three conditions to add to the planning permission.  The applicant’s agent had agreed to the conditions so these would be added to the planning permission should Members be minded to permit the application.  The application site was located off Shurdington Road and was currently an undeveloped plot between Woodbine Cottage to the northeast and Shurdington House Stables and 1 Malvern View to the southwest. The site contained unmaintained grassland enclosed by mature hedgerows and trees.  The site was located outside of the settlement boundary within the Cotswold National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and within the Green Belt. The site formed a gap within the village of Shurdington with residential development either side in an otherwise built-up frontage. The Public Right of Way to the north-east of the site would be unaffected by the proposed development.  The site was located within Flood Zone 1 and there were no heritage or other planning designations affecting the site.  The five three and four bedroom dwellings were two storey with dual pitched roofs and single storey with green, flat roofed elements; solar panels were proposed for each dwelling.  Plots 2, 3 and 4 each had access to a garage and all plots had off-street parking for two vehicles and private rear gardens.  The existing field access would be closed off and two new vehicular accesses would be created - one to serve Plots 1 and 2 and the second to serve the remaining plots.  Despite the application site not being located within a defined settlement boundary, the proposal was considered to be infill within Shurdington as per part 4(ii) of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy. The site had a clear physical and functional relationship to the Service Village and was well related to the existing built-up frontage along the A46 such that the proposal was considered acceptable in principle.  The proposal was considered to be limited infilling in a village and therefore complied with exception 154(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.  The Cotswold National Landscape Board agreed with the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal and, although the development would encroach into the National Landscape, it would be viewed in the context of the adjacent built development and the significant local influence of the A46. The site was well contained and the addition of five dwellings and associated landscape mitigation would ensure it would not have a harmful impact on the Cotswold National Landscape.  There were no objections from statutory consultees, the proposal was considered to be in accordance with the development plan and there were no clear reasons for refusal in accordance with Paragraph 11d(i) and footnote 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

68.10        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that this was an application for the construction of five high-quality detached family dwellings included associated access, landscaping, garaging and parking.  Following detailed discussion and negotiation with Officers, the layout and design of the proposals had been amended during the course of the application to fully address comments raised.  It was acknowledged that previous applications for residential development had been submitted for this site, but it was important to note that these were circa 25 years ago within a vastly different national and local planning policy context. As Members would be aware, the current application must be considered on its own merits against the latest planning policy background.  As a result, the application was advanced on the basis that these dwellings represented “limited infilling in a village” which was one of the defined exemptions allowing development in the Green Belt. The assessment on limited infilling had been well-established through planning law and local decisions, including appeal decisions, as set out within their submission and the Committee report.  As outlined in the Committee report, the site represented infilling between properties to the northeast and the southwest and had been designed with a linear layout in order to replicate this otherwise built-up frontage.  The site was located centrally within the village of Shurdington, in close walking distance to all amenities and services within the village, as well as having direct access to Gloucester and Cheltenham via the No. 10 bus service - this was a highly sustainable location for development.  As Members would have seen on the site visit, the site had a shallow slope in topography from Shurdington Road in the west up to the rear of the site in the east. It should be noted the dwellings would be located centrally within the site where land levels were, on average, just 40cm higher than the highway edge.  Notwithstanding this, and as depicted in the submitted streetscene, the dwellings would be constructed at a lower level more consistent with the highway edge both for access purposes and to ensure that the height of the dwellings would be consistent with the neighbouring built form. The Council would have control over these levels through an appropriately worded condition.  It was acknowledged that the site was located within, but on the edge of, the Cotswolds National Landscape and impact of the proposals on the landscape had been fully assessed from the outset and the submission was supported by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal which had been assessed by both the Cotswolds National Landscape Board and the Council’s Landscape Officer, neither of which raised any objections to the development of the site.  Conditions were recommended in relation to landscaping, lighting, ecological enhancement, construction management, access installation, foul and surface water drainage etc. all of which were acceptable to the applicant.  In conclusion, the applicant’s agent considered this to be a high quality addition to this area, which would meet all necessary policies.  The proposals did not have any outstanding technical objections and it was recommended by Officers for approval.  As a result, the applicant was now seeking the Committee’s support in a positive determination of this application.

68.11        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted there was a mature stream to the northeast of the site and he sought clarification as to whether this was inside or outside of the site boundary - he would be keen to see this protected if it did form part of the application site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised there was a spring to the top right of the site but there was no record of it going into the site; it was naturally occurring following the recent flooding over the last few months and, in any case, the site was within Flood Zone 1 and had been assessed by the Council’s Drainage Officer who raised no objection subject to the inclusion of a suitably worded condition.  The Member felt it had been clear on the Planning Committee site visit that it was a mature stream which was very active when they had been on site and he urged Officers to look more closely to ensure the applicant would not do anything to inhibit its flow, both for flood and ecology purposes.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed this would be picked up in proposed condition 5 which would be reviewed and signed off by the Drainage Officer.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised there would also be a landscaping condition for the whole site which would incorporate that area.

68.12        In response to a query as to the context around what was considered to be limited infilling, the Senior Planning Officer advised that Paragraph 5.4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan stated that Shurdington was one of the borough’s largest and most sustainable Service Villages.  Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework provided a number of exceptions to the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt which included limited infilling; there was no hard and fast definition but, in the context of the village of Shurdington, five dwellings was considered to be limited infilling.

68.13        It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. Whilst he recognised that each application should be considered on its own merits, a Member raised concern that an application had been refused at the last Planning Committee meeting despite abutting existing houses and having development on three sides of the site on the basis that could not be considered as infilling which seemed to be at odds with the advice being given in this instance.  He noted that the previous application in 2002 had been refused largely due to the impact on the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and if this was permitted it would lead to the loss of an important open space.  Whilst he acknowledged these points, the Chair reminded Members that this application was being determined in a different planning policy context with the tilted balance engaged.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) clarified that the site was not designated as an important open space either in constraint or policy terms but was in relation to the characteristics of the road and the wider area.

68.14        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation including the additional highways conditions as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet attached at Appendix 1.