Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Permission in Principle application for the erection of between one and seven dwellings, including 40% affordable housing on site.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

73.2          This was a Permission in Principle application for the erection of between one and seven dwellings, including 40% affordable housing on site. 

73.3          The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that since writing the Committee report, an additional six documents had been submitted by the applicant showing their engagement with Historic England since the refusal of the previous Permission in Principle application.  He advised that the submitted documents did not provide any further new information for the Council to assess and document 6 was provided within Appendix 1 of the Planning Statement submitted with the application.  It was also noted that Page No. 24, Paragraph 2.1 of the Committee report contained a typographical error in relation to the site area which should read 0.6 hectares.  He also noted that it had been brought to his attention late last night that a letter from the applicant had been circulated to all Members of the Committee on Friday 19 April 2024.  He went on to advise that the application site was located off Bozard Lane to the north of Tredington village; Tredington did not have a defined settlement boundary and was considered to be a rural settlement. The site was adjacent to St John The Baptist Church which was a Grade I listed building - Grade I listed buildings were in the top 2% of listed buildings.  The application site was bounded by public footpaths and the site was located within Flood Zone 1.  In terms of planning history, a Permission in Principle application was refused in January 2023 for the erection of between one and nine dwellings on the site for two reasons: the development would conflict with Policies RES1, RES2, RES3 and RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan; and, the development would cause unacceptable and unjustified harm to the historic significance and setting of the Grade I listed church.  The current application sought to address the reasons for refusal by reducing the maximum number of units from nine to seven and now sought to provide 40% affordable housing.  The application was accompanied by a Historic Environment Appraisal.  The application site was located to the north of the linear built-up area of Tredington; however, it was separated from the core of the village by the church which provided a transition to the open countryside.  The proposed development would result in the creation of housing outside of the existing pattern, would not complement the form of the settlement and would not relate to existing buildings within that settlement, contrary to Policy RES4.  In relation to heritage, Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer had both objected to the proposal as it would lead to less than substantial harm to the Grade I listed building. The proposed benefits of the scheme, mainly the provision of up to seven units and 40% affordable housing, were not considered to outweigh the harm to the heritage asset in accordance with Paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  It was noted that the titled balance was not engaged on this application due to the harm to the designated heritage asset in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Parish Council had objected to the application and whilst County Highways had raised no objection to the application itself, it had raised concerns about the lack of a footway connection to the main village.  The Council’s Housing Officer had requested that a minimum of 40% affordable housing be provided on site in the event that the maximum number of seven units were developed.  In conclusion, the proposal would not accord with the development plan when considered as a whole and, having regard to all material considerations including the National Planning Policy Framework, there were clear reasons for refusing the development in relation to its location and impact on a Grade I listed building.  As such, it would not constitute sustainable development and was therefore recommended for refusal.

73.4           The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that the application had arisen from a call for sites when the Planning Committee was advocating that small villages should have developments of 10 units, including affordable homes, to allow them to thrive and grow.  He did not intend to labour the acknowledged mishandling of the previous Permission in Principle application but felt Members should be aware that an in-depth investigation by the Interim Planning Manager in 2023 had found worrying, sizeable issues and, for those reasons Tewkesbury Borough Council and Historic England had asked them to re-submit this application.  The applicant felt that this Committee report was, again, very concerning.  As stated, the site area was 0.6 hectares, not two as was shown in the last application and it failed to acknowledge the existing footway, clearly marked on the plan, which safely connected this site to highways and bus stops – the public footpath made this site accessible and sustainable.  However, the main concern regarding the Committee report was that Historic England’s submission was stated as an objection but no objection had been recorded or inferred throughout that document; Historic England’s recommendation was that the authority take its representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in its advice.  The applicant explained they had worked with Historic England for over a year and when the Senior Inspector for the South West had visited the site last August he had noted his support for the affordable homes and suggested design parameters as set out in the concept plan.  The applicant confirmed that, if successful, they would be more than happy to continue their working relationship with Historic England.   He went on to point out that Tredington Primary School had a capacity of 105 pupils but just 64 on role, three of which were children from Tredington.  A footpath had been built to the school but no children used it; there was a village hall but no youth club and a beautiful church but no Sunday school.  He felt the clear benefit of affordable homes should be weighed as more important than the “less than substantial degree of harm” under the National Planning Policy Framework definition, quoted against the heritage asset by Historic England.  The Officer’s opinion did not give a clear reason to refuse as suggested and would be called into question should an appeal be submitted.  It was a balance that should engage the presumption in favour of sustainable development and he reminded Members that the Council would retain control over design at the Technical Details Consent stage.  Tredington needed more young people to keep it alive and affordable homes to enable young families to stay in the village and this site would deliver the much needed, small scale, affordable homes as required in the recent Gloucestershire Rural Community Council (GRCC) report.

73.5           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member sought clarification as to what the next stage would be should the Permission in Principle application be permitted and was advised that the Permission in Principle application was the first stage of the process and sought solely to establish whether the site was suitable in principle for the provision of between one and seven dwellings; the second stage was the Technical Details Consent stage where details such as design, landscaping, drainage and other technical matters were assessed.  The Member sought clarification as to whether the Technical Details Consent application could be for fewer houses if the impact of seven dwellings was deemed to be inappropriate and confirmation was provided that the Technical Details Consent could be for one dwelling up to a maximum of seven dwellings.  In the event that the application was for fewer than seven dwellings, another Member pointed out that the amount of affordable housing would also reduce and questioned if it was possible there could be a scenario where not one whole affordable dwelling was delivered on site.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed it was a matter for the Technical Details Consent stage and was not a relevant consideration for this Permission in Principle application.

73.6           It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member pointed out there was modern housing adjacent to the church and, as referenced by the applicant, Historic England had not made a formal objection to the application but had asked for more information which would come forward at the Technical Details Consent stage.  Tredington was a sustainable location with regular bus services to Cheltenham, Gloucester and Bishop’s Cleeve and there was employment in the village which had a public house and golf centre.  There were currently 79 houses in Tredington and no affordable homes so some development was needed to reinvigorate the school and support the village.  In her view this was an application which should be progressed.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that document 6 of the applicant’s submission contained pre-application advice from Historic England dated 8 August 2023 which recommended that a full planning application be submitted in order to allow the impact on the heritage assets to be assessed.  It was Officer opinion that this effectively constituted an objection due to the lack of information provided within the Permission in Principle application.  The Local Planning Authority had a statutory duty to protect, enhance and conserve listed buildings and the Grade I listed church was afforded additional protection in the National Planning Policy Framework; without sufficient information it was not possible to carry out the statutory duty, particularly when Historic England had raised concern and the Council’s Conservation Officer had objected to the scheme.  The Member assumed it would be possible for these issues to be resolved at the Technical Details Consent stage and, if they were not, the application could be refused at that point.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that there were concerns regarding location – one of the factors that could be assessed at the Permission in Principle stage – in terms of the impact on the heritage asset and potential harm to its setting.

73.7           A Member indicated that he could not support the motion to refuse the application which would be a good opportunity to secure affordable housing as well as market dwellings for the village.  He was of the view that villages should not be allowed to die through lack of development or investment and considered that the scale of the proposed development was appropriate for Tredington.  He failed to see what harm would be caused to the heritage asset given that it was already surrounded by houses.  Provided it was sustainable, he felt Members should be supportive of the National Planning Policy Framework in terms of delivering housing in the right area – he felt this proposal would help to inject life into the village.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (East) reminded Members that the affordable housing offer had been put forward by the applicant but there was no mechanism to secure it through the Permission in Principle application.  If the site remained at 0.6 hectares in any Technical Details Consent application there would be a requirement to look at what that offer was, based on the amount of units - the applicant could come forward with a scheme for one or two dwellings, rather than the maximum of seven, and registered providers may not pick up such a small amount of affordable housing on site.  Officers had not been advised as to who the registered provider would be and there was no information about tenure type; the recommendation from the Housing Officer was for social rent but there was no information from the applicant as to what might come forward.  If Members deemed it to be a sustainable location, Policy RES4 looked to bring new housing to rural settlements but set out that it should complement the form of the settlement and be well related to existing buildings within it.  The application site was located to the north of the built-up area of Tredington and was separated from the core of the village by the church which provided a transition to the open countryside within which the application site was most closely related, therefore, Officers were of the opinion that the site was not located within and adjacent to the built-up area of Tredington.  The proposer of the motion wished to put on record that he was supportive of affordable housing in genuinely sustainable locations but he was not convinced this was one; in this case, it was likely that only one, two or at most three, of the dwellings would be affordable and he did not feel that level of housing would bear the weight of expectation in terms of supporting the school, church and public house.  Policy RES4 was in place to maintain the life of villages but also for protection and he remained of the view this application should be refused.

73.8           A Member indicated that she was very conflicted with the application and agreed that villages needed to be reinvigorated.  She considered the number of dwellings to be proportionate within the village setting and that they would contribute to, rather than solve, the problems with the school, public house etc.  Notwithstanding this, she was concerned as to whether the affordable housing would be truly affordable given its rural setting – it may not be affordable for young people looking to buy their first house.  She asked if it was an option for the applicant to submit a full application and was informed that the applicant had been given that advice on the basis that the details required for a Permission in Principle application were minimal and Historic England was in a position whereby it could not fully assess the proposal on the basis of the information submitted with this application. The seconder of the motion indicated that she was also in favour of affordable housing provided it was ‘real’ affordable housing with no risk of ending up with only one affordable dwelling or a situation where registered providers did not want to take it up.  This had come back for a second time as a Permission in Principle application and she would like to see a full application in order for Historic England to be able to undertake a proper assessment.  Another Member shared the view this should be a full planning application and whilst he felt there was merit in some housing, he was concerned about the proximity to the church and felt details were needed in order to assess that.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) pointed out that there were two recommended refusal reasons, one in relation to the heritage impact and another regarding location of the site; if a full application was submitted and the heritage issues could be resolved, there may still be locational issues with the site but, if the heritage issues fell away, the tilted balance may be engaged hence there would be a different context to assess.  The seconder of the motion noted there had been some remarks about the church being surrounded by housing but the plans showed that was not the case currently; however, if this application was permitted, it would set a precedent and that would likely be the end result.  In response to a query regarding the Parish Council’s objection to the previous application, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Parish Council had objected due to the location of the site and the adverse impact on the setting of the Grade I listed building, the type of land use as it was not an infill plot or an allocated site and the amount of development – it was noted that the third objection was based on the application for nine dwellings whereas the current application was for between one and seven dwellings.

73.9           Upon being put to the vote, it was

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