Case Reference: 3256319

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 30 November – 4 December 2020
Site visit made on 9 December 2020
by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12th January 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/G1630/W/20/3256319
Land off Ashmead Drive, Gotherington
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Tewkesbury Borough Council.
• The application Ref 19/01071/OUT, dated 25 October 2019, was refused by notice
dated 16 June 2020.
• The development proposed is an outline planning application with means of access from
Ashmead Drive (all other matters reserved for subsequent approval), for the erection of
up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping;
formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary
and enabling works.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outline
planning application with means of access from Ashmead Drive (all other
matters reserved for subsequent approval), for the erection of up to 50
dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping;
formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other
ancillary and enabling works at Land off Ashmead Drive, Gotherington in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19/01071/OUT, dated 25
October 2019, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. This appeal is an outline planning application for up to 50 dwellings with all
matters except for access reserved. Indicative plans have been provided
detailing the layout and landscaping. I have had regard to these so far as
relevant to the appeal.
3. The Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan 2011-2031 - Pre-Submission version 2019
(eLP) is due to be examined in early 2021. However, the Hearing dates have
not yet been confirmed and no examination has taken place. There are also
unresolved objections. Therefore, I attach little weight to the emerging policies.
4. The joint authorities in the area are in the early stages of preparing a Joint
Core Strategy Review. Given its stage in the examination process, I give it very
little weight.
5. The Cotswolds Conservation Board received Rule 6 Party status and presented
evidence on the second main issue at the Inquiry.
6. Several planning obligations were submitted in draft form, discussed at the
Inquiry and subsequently finalised. I have taken them all into account.
7. Reasons for refusal 4 and 5 were not pursued at the Inquiry owing to the
drafting of the planning obligations. I have proceeded to determine the appeal
accordingly.
Main Issues
8. The main issues are:
(a) Whether the proposal would accord with the Council’s plan led strategy
for housing and growth;
(b) The effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance of
the area; including the setting of, and the effect in, the Cotswolds Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and,
(c) The effect of the proposal on the social well-being and vitality of
Gotherington.
Reasons
9. Located to the south of Gotherington’s settlement boundary, the site is an open
and relatively flat field. Existing residential development influences the
northern and eastern boundaries of the site. To the western boundary, houses
on Shutter Lane are evident to the north western part, but to the south of the
public right of way (PRoW) that transects the site, the park home caravan site
is not overly prominent from the site itself. Agricultural fields extend to the
south, separating Gotherington from Bishops Cleeve, a larger village over
500m away.
10. To the north and east of Gotherington is the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (the AONB) and the site falls within a locally designated Special
Landscape Area (SLA). Policy justification sets out that the SLAs play a role in
providing the foreground setting for the adjacent AONB.
11. The proposal is for outline planning permission, developing the site for up to 50
dwellings. Based on the land use plan, these dwellings would be located to the
south side of the site with large areas of formal and informal open space
proposed on the northern and western parts of the site.
Strategy for housing and growth
12. Gotherington is identified as a Service Village in the Gloucester, Cheltenham
and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) (JCS). Policy
SP2 of the JCS details that Service Villages will accommodate in the order of
880 dwellings, yet this number is not a maximum.
13. Policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS broadly encourage residential development to
be located in Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, along with rural service
centres and service villages. The site is not allocated for development in the
JCS and does not meet any of the exception criteria in Policy SD10, sitting
outside the settlement boundary of Gotherington.
14. Policy GNDP02 of the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-
2031 (September 2017) (NDP) identifies 3 sites for residential development.
The site is not identified. The latter part of the policy refers to the future
development plan identifying the possibility of additional strategic housing need
in Gotherington, with criteria if this occurs.
15. Similarly, policies GNDP03 and GNDP11 of the NDP set out criteria for
development outside of the defined settlement boundary and not on allocated
sites. One of the criteria in both policies is where evidenced need for additional
housing in Gotherington has been established through the development plan
and cannot be met within the defined settlement boundary.
16. The NDP identifies that Gotherington should provide around 86 homes between
2011-2031. This is based upon evidence in the Council’s “Approach to Rural
Sites” (February 2015) document, which has also formed the evidence base for
the eLP. The allocated sites proposed a minimum of 66 new dwellings, with the
3 ensuing planning permissions granting 69 dwellings. Paragraph 5.11 of the
NDP sets out that with the 3 allocated sites, and including 26 dwellings
completed prior to the NDP being made, there would be a minimum of 92
dwellings delivered.
17. The appellant argued that the 3 allocated sites would not deliver the 92
dwellings and there was a shortfall of 23 units. I disagree. When 5.11 is read
as a whole, 26 units were delivered after 2011 while the NDP was being
prepared/examined. These form part of the housing supply in the plan period.
Therefore, based upon the NDP, there is no identified shortfall of housing in
Gotherington itself. That said, the Council acknowledge there is a shortage of
housing in the Borough, with there being less than a 5 year housing land
supply. I shall return to this matter later.
18. To conclude on this main issue, the location of development would not accord
with the Council’s plan-led strategy for housing and growth. This would be
contrary to policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS and policies GNDP02, GNDP03
and GNDP11 of the NDP. There would be conflict with Policy RES3 of the eLP,
as the location of development would also not meet the strategy for the
distribution of new development in the area, given the settlement boundary of
Gotherington is not proposed to change in the eLP.
Landscape character and appearance
19. There are several topic areas in relation to this main issue referred to in the
reason for refusal and the evidence before me. Therefore, I have split this
section into subheadings dealing with each issue before concluding overall.
20. Although the site is within the SLA, its contribution to the setting of the AONB
is limited. It has few special qualities aside from being a pleasant undeveloped
field and given its proximity to the village and sense of enclosure on most
sides, even its landscape and visual quality is low.
21. The importance of the AONB is enshrined by statue, and paragraph 172 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) gives great weight to
conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs. Additionally,
Policy SD7 of the JCS requires proposals within the setting of the Cotswolds
AONB to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance its landscape, scenic
beauty, wildlife, cultural heritage and other special qualities. Proposals will be
required to be consistent with the policies set out in the Cotswolds AONB
Management Plan 2018-2023 (MP). Various policies in the NDP also seek to
protect the AONB and views into and out of it, particularly those from
Nottingham Hill and Cleeve Hill.
22. Policy CE1 of the MP sets out that proposals that are likely to impact on, or
create change in, the landscape of the Cotswolds AONB, should have regard to
the scenic quality of the location and its setting and ensure that views –
including those into and out of the AONB – and visual amenity are conserved
and enhanced.
Views towards the AONB
23. From the PRoW that runs east west and the PRoW that runs south to Bishops
Cleeve, views of the AONB can be appreciated, especially towards Nottingham
Hill and Cleeve Hill.
24. The proposal would introduce built development onto the southern parcel of the
site. By its very existence, views from the PRoWs towards the AONB, in
particular Nottingham Hill, would be changed by the introduction of housing.
Whilst these views are of a high quality, given they take place from the PRoWs,
the views are transient, appreciated by people travelling along the routes for a
relatively short amount of time.
25. A large area of open space on the northern part of the site, along with footpath
linkages is proposed. Unlike the existing transient views, the open space would
provide people with the opportunity to spend time viewing the AONB, which
would still be visible above or between the new houses depending upon where
one was situated on the open space. Furthermore, the appellant has submitted
a unilateral undertaking (UU) that makes provision for a multi-purpose
community area (MPCA). The purposes of this space would be for meeting, play
or holding events and the UU describes its form would be either a seating area
(such as a mini amphitheatre) or covered space (such as a band stand).
26. Providing the MPCA is sensitively sited, the space, particularly that of a mini
amphitheatre, would provide a formal area in which the public could view the
AONB, including Nottingham Hill for as long as they desired. Owing to the
formal and informal space becoming publicly available space, existing views
from this currently private part of the site towards the escarpment and AONB
would become publicly available. Whilst these views would include the new
housing development in the foreground, I do not consider that this would
significantly reduce the quality of the view. This is because existing housing
development is visible from the existing PRoWs and the ‘new’ views could be
appreciated for a longer and more leisurely period. Additionally, views from the
PRoWs would also remain above or between the dwellings, such that at
different points along the PRoWs, some views could still be gained.
Views from the AONB
27. The effect of the proposal on views from Nottingham Hill and Cleeve Hill was
the subject of much discussion during the Inquiry, and I viewed the site from
both viewpoints on my visit.
28. Evidence at the Inquiry focussed on whether paragraph 172 of the Framework
was relevant to this appeal. Having regard to case law1 presented, along with
the Planning Practice Guidance, in my view, although the proposal is outside
1 Stroud District Council v SSCLG v Gladman Developments Limited [2015] EWHC 488 (Admin)
the AONB, the effect on views out of the AONB, gained from within the AONB
would result in paragraph 172 being relevant.
29. Nottingham Hill – the appellants conclude the effect from this viewpoint would
be moderate adverse. The Council state major/moderate adverse. The Rule 6
Party state significant adverse.
30. The viewpoint takes in a panoramic view from the Cotswold escarpment
towards the Vale of Gloucester/Severn Vale with the Malvern Hills beyond.
Gotherington is prominent in the foreground and the proposal would be visible.
That said, the view is extensive and long ranging, and the development would
be located between 2 ‘fingers’ of development that run along Cleeve Road and
the park home caravan site. Whilst it would introduce permanent built
development onto an undeveloped site, it would be an edge of settlement site,
enclosed from this view point on 3 sides by other built development, such that
in the context of the wide ranging view, the proposal would not lead to a major
or significant adverse effect. Indeed, I agree with the previous Inspector, who
assessed a similar appeal2 at this site, that it would recede into the existing
settlement pattern.
31. However, I acknowledge that views from the escarpment are one of the special
qualities of the AONB, and the effect would be moderately adverse owing
purely to the introduction of built development and the change to the view.
This would lead to a moderate harm to the AONB from this viewpoint.
32. Cleeve Hill – the view from Cleeve Hill is more extensive than that from
Nottingham Hill and takes in Cheltenham, Bishops Cleeve, Gotherington, other
villages and open countryside. Views of the site are available and it is seen as
part of the gap between Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve, yet, the site is
clearly enclosed on 3 sides by development from this viewpoint. Additionally, in
the context of the wide panoramic views taken from this point, the
development of the site would have a neutral effect.
Coalescence of Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve
33. Spatially, the gap between Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve would not be
reduced by the proposal given the existing development to 3 sides of the site.
Indeed, the narrower gap that exists between dwellings on Cleeve Road and
the Homelands site would remain the same, and there would be a substantial
gap of over 500m remaining between the site and Bishops Cleeve.
34. When viewed from Nottingham Hill, even with the new residential development
that has taken place in Bishops Cleeve, because much of Bishops Cleeve is not
readily visible, and the site is enclosed on 3 sides, it would also not result in
encroachment or perceived coalescence of the villages.
35. From Cleeve Hill, similarly, the site is visibly enclosed by existing development
and the proposal would not contribute towards further coalescence of
Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve. From other viewpoints around the site, there
would not be a noticeable reduction in the gap.
36. Nonetheless, perceptually, residents and the Council take the PRoW running
east west across the site to be the natural line of where development stops in
the village. Development to the south of this, where the housing is proposed,
2 APP/G1630/W/17/3175559
would, in their view, perceptually bring Gotherington closer to Bishops Cleeve.
When travelling on the PRoW than runs north south between the villages, I
agree there would be a sense of development advancing towards Bishops
Cleeve.
37. However, the indicative plans show a landscaping buffer to the southern edge
of the site. This would continue the existing well-established landscaping strip
to the south east corner of the site along the southern boundary, to the extent
that any perceptual effect of encroachment from this PRoW would be
satisfactorily ameliorated over time. Therefore, a strong sense of separation
would be maintained.
38. The site’s allocation in the eLP strategic gap policy was also the subject of
much discussion. However, this is a matter for the Local Plan Inspector in
examining the eLP.
39. Nevertheless, it is my view that the site does not function as an essential part
of the gap between villages and development of the site would appear as an
infill. Additionally, a clear gap would remain which is likely to be subject to
protection in the eLP, and development of the site would not result in
coalescence of Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve.
Linear form of Gotherington
40. The proposal would not project into the open countryside beyond existing
development southwards. When viewed from Nottingham Hill, although the
depth of Gotherington would become greater and the proposal would not follow
the linear shape of the settlement; to my mind, it would be read as infill
development. Even so, Malleson Road and Gretton Road would remain as the
most prominently developed roads in the village, and the linear form would not
be adversely affected.
Conclusion on landscape character and appearance
41. Given its location adjacent to the settlement boundary, the relatively enclosed
nature of the site and its limited contribution to the SLA; development of the
site would not appear as a significant encroachment into the surrounding rural
landscape that could be considered as harmful or disproportionate. The gap
between villages would be maintained and the linear nature of Gotherington
would not be adversely affected. Views towards the AONB from the site would
change, but with the views that would become available from the open space,
the effect would be acceptable.
42. It is, however, inevitable that there would be a permanent change to the
landscape character of the area by the development of a greenfield site with
housing. Whilst the site is not a valued landscape for the purposes of
paragraph 170 (a) of the Framework, the site is locally valued, and the
proposal would not enhance the landscape character of the area. For this
reason, there would be some limited harm. There would also be a moderately
adverse effect from the viewpoint at Nottingham Hill. Furthermore, whilst the
effect on the view from Cleeve Hill would be neutral, it would not enhance
landscape and scenic beauty.
43. Therefore, when looking at the overall effect and drawing this together, it is my
view that the proposal would lead to some limited harm to landscape character
and appearance of the area and the setting of the AONB. There would be
overall moderate harm to views from the AONB. Thus, the proposal would
conflict with Policy LND2 of the LP, Policies SD6 and SD7 of the JCS, Policies
GNDP02 and GNDP09 of the NDP, and Framework paragraphs 170 and 172.
However, given my finding on the views towards the AONB, there would be no
conflict with GNDP10 of the NDP, which seeks to give special attention to
locally significant views.
44. Like the previous Inspector, I agree that LND2 of the LP is not entirely
consistent with the Framework, and this reduces the weight which I afford it.
45. Whilst I do not find the site to be of high quality in landscape terms, based on
the current eLP, there would be conflict with Policy LAN1, which seeks to
maintain the quality of the natural environment and its visual attractiveness.
However, given my findings on the gap, there would be no conflict with Policy
LAN3 of the eLP, which seeks to protect the strategic gaps.
46. My conclusion on this main issue is different to that of the previous Appeal
Decision on this site. However, I do not know what evidence was presented to
this Inspector; and the evidence presented to me, particularly the effects from
the AONB, have led me to a different opinion.
Social well-being of Gotherington
47. Gotherington village is identified as a Service Village in the JCS and would be
expected to take a reasonable amount of new housing development. That said,
the village has seen housing developments built out over the last few years on
sites at Malleson Road and Shutter Lane.
48. The previous Appeal Decision at the site, for a very similar development, found
there would be harm to the social well-being of the village at the time of the
decision. This was owing to the scale and extent of development that had taken
place in the village at the time, and the Inspector was not provided with
persuasive evidence that the facilities were capable of expansion.
49. However, since this decision was made in April 2018, these housing
developments have been substantially completed such that it would be
reasonable to conclude that their effect upon the village has been largely
absorbed or would be by the end of this year. Indeed, the appellant’s evidence
indicates that the last property within the Shutter Lane development was
purchased in September 2017, and development of Malleson Road is projected
to be completed by the end of March 2021. Development of this site would not
commence until around 2023/24, and at that point, would result in around a
9% increase in the village, which is not exceptionally large, nor
disproportionate to the size of the village at that time. I also note there is no
anticipated delivery of homes in Gotherington between 2021/22 to 2022/23,
nor anytime beyond this except for this site. Thus, when dwellings would start
to be delivered, no new homes would have been delivered in the village for 2
years, so any new development could be assimilated differently to when the
previous Inspector was considering the proposal.
50. Moreover, as part of the proposal, a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), Locally
Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and MPCA would be provided on-site within the
area of Public Open Space. This MUGA and MPCA are new to the proposal
before me. Together with the LEAP, these facilities are likely to act as a focal
point for the development which would benefit both new residents and the
existing community. The public open space and MUGA would also accord with
aspirations from the NDP by providing more activities for young people. The
MUGA could be used for football of which residents assert a shortage, and any
potential noise issues would be addressed at a later stage. The MPCA would
deliver a social benefit for people of all ages being able to meet in a formalised
area, and the LEAP would provide an area of play for children and parents or
carers to meet. These on site facilities would be of a social benefit and
contribute towards supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities. The
current space is valued by the community and formalised use of it would be of
benefit to the existing residents.
51. Furthermore, the monetary contributions towards the provision of school
places, which is agreed by the County Council, indicates that the increase in
demand can be accommodated, even if this is in Bishops Cleeve. However, as
the catchment area for the primary school includes this site, I see no reason
why occupiers of the new dwellings would not be able to access school places
over time. Other planning obligations will provide monies toward libraries to
ensure any effect upon their capacity is suitably mitigated. The Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would also provide monies in the village.
52. The range of services in the village is satisfactory and although the Council
considered them to be generally low quality, I disagree. The evidence I have
been presented with demonstrates that the facilities are well used, and new
residents could access them if they wished to do so. This would have a positive
effect upon local services and facilities. Furthermore, whilst there may be
waiting lists for some groups, this is not uncommon for popular children’s
activities. The residents assert that the village hall has a restricted layout and
size. Whilst this may be the case, there are other facilities in the village, such
as the Old Chapel, and it is also not uncommon for older community buildings
to have some form of size restriction.
53. Whilst the proposal is not anticipated by the NDP, the cumulative development
of the village would not be overly disproportionate, and there is no tangible
evidence before me that the village has reached capacity. Furthermore, I
gauged a strong sense of community from the interested parties such that I
see no reason why new residents would find it difficult to assimilate into the
village.
54. Therefore, the proposal would not be harmful to the social well-being and
vitality of the village. Moreover, given the onsite facilities and the many
benefits new housing can bring by enabling local people to stay local, providing
family homes and contributing to the local economy, it could lead to an
enhancement of the vitality and well-being in the village.
55. This would be compliant with Policy SP2 of the JCS, which seeks to
accommodate lower levels of development proportional to their size and
function. There would also be compliance with the Framework, which seeks to
support strong, vibrant and healthy communities.
Other Matters
Housing Land Supply
56. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. At this appeal,
the Council claim that it has 4.37 years supply, based on the October 2020 Five
Year Housing Land Supply Statement (HLSS). The appellants assert 1.82 years.
The significant difference in numbers is largely attributed to the Council’s
reduction in its 5 year annual requirement owing to a significant oversupply in
previous years.
57. On the first day of the Inquiry, the appellants brought to my attention the
Council’s response to the eLP Examining Inspector’s preliminary questions.
Within this document, the JCS Monitoring Report (Autumn 2020) is appended
and sets out that Tewkesbury Borough has 2.9 years of housing supply. To
explain this clear anomaly in evidence, the Council referred me to paragraph
3.2 of the response, which sets out that “the Council’s Housing Monitoring
Report 2019/20 and Five Year Supply Position Statement will provide the most
up to date information specific to Tewkesbury Borough”. However, whilst this
may be the Council’s position, the JCS Monitoring Report is dated a few months
prior to the publication of the HLSS and the very different figures in each
document weakens the Council’s position on this matter.
Additional supply
58. The Council indicate that their approach to incorporating additional supply is
consistent with Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 323. This states
that “where areas deliver more completions than required, the additional
supply can be used to offset any shortfalls against requirements from previous
years”. However, paragraph 73 of the Framework states “LPAs should identify
and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a
minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set
out in adopted strategic policies”.
59. The policy in the Framework makes no allowance for subtracting additional
supply from the annual requirement. Moreover, whilst the guidance in the PPG
enables LPAs to take additional supply into account, there is no requirement to
do so. It is not a symmetrical approach to dealing with undersupply as
advocated by the Council.
60. PPG paragraph 32 details that the additional supply can be used to offset
shortfalls against requirements from previous years. Therefore, shortfalls
against requirements from previous years would be necessary, in order to take
account of any additional supply. The requirement from previous years, being
those since the development plan was adopted, is 495 dwellings per annum
(dpa). In the 3 years since adoption, there has been an overall surplus of 797
dwellings, and since the base date there has been an overall surplus of 1,115
dwellings. Therefore, there is no shortfall against requirements from previous
years which could conceivably be offset.
61. Furthermore, for a site to be considered deliverable, it should be available now,
offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic
prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years. Housing
already delivered cannot possibly meet this definition.
62. The Council’s argument that the loss of additional housing delivery would have
significant implications for plan making, potentially resulting in Council’s
holding back sites and restricting sites, is unfounded. This is because it would
be unreasonable to refuse planning permission for housing if there had been
3 Reference ID: 68-032-20190722
additional supply, bearing in mind the Government’s objective of significantly
boosting the supply of homes. Additionally, Policy SP1 of the JCS requires at
least 9,899 new homes. There is no maximum number.
63. Whilst it is clear that housing above the annual requirements has been
delivered in the area and housing supply has been boosted in line with the
Framework; it is my view that additional supply is not a tool that can be used
to discount the Council’s housing requirement set out in its adopted strategic
policies. Consequently, the annual requirement should be 495 dpa as set out in
the adopted strategic policies, and the future supply should reflect this.
Therefore, the past additional supply should be removed from the 5 year
housing requirement. As detailed by the appellant, this would reduce the
housing land supply to 2.4 years.
Disputed sites
64. Land at Fiddington, Ashchurch – the site has outline planning permission and is
subject to several planning conditions. One of these is the submission of a site
wide master plan prior to reserved matters, which is currently being considered
by the Council. As it stands, there are outstanding concerns from Sport
England and a re-consultation was taking place.
65. There have been no pre-application discussions or the submission of reserved
matters application, nor does it appear any site assessment work has taken
place. There is also no known developer. Notably however, the email I have
from the site promoter, which agrees with the Council’s trajectory in the HLSS,
postdates the publication of the HLSS. This raises significant concerns over the
validity of the trajectory used. I appreciate the site promoter may have a good
track record for delivering sites and the Council believe there is no reason to
prevent development within a 5 year period, yet, the site promotor is not the
developer. The test in the Framework is that there should be clear evidence
that housing completions will begin on site within five years. In this case, I do
not believe I have clear evidence.
66. Land at Stoke Road, Bishop’s Cleeve – similar to the above site, the site has
outline planning permission. The Council is in pre-application discussions with a
major housebuilder, but these details are confidential. However, no reserved
matters, site assessment work or conditions have been submitted for
discharge. The site remains in the ownership of the promoter, and again, the
email from the site promotor, which considers the Council’s trajectory to
“remain broadly accurate” also postdates the publication of the HLSS.
67. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect housing to be delivered on site in
2022/23, and I have no clear evidence to suggest this. Yet, the pre-application
discussions indicate that there is developer interest and it would be reasonable
to assume some delivery in 2023 and beyond.
Future supply
68. Aside from the 2 disputed sites and windfall developments, there is only one
other site beyond years 1 and 2 in the trajectory which is predicted to deliver 5
dwellings. Notwithstanding my findings on the above sites, this is a grave
situation.
69. The Council asserts that the eLP contains numerous housing allocations, which
will feed into the supply following adoption. However, at the current time, the
plan is of limited weight and these allocations should not be included in the
trajectory. Furthermore, the eLP details that it is not the role of the Plan to
meet the shortfall identified by the JCS, but it could contribute towards meeting
some of this housing need.
70. The JCS was adopted with a shortfall, which was to be remedied by an
immediate review on the plan. It is now 3 years later and there is little
progress towards this.
71. The trajectory does not include sites which have a resolution to permit awaiting
planning obligations. I also have very little evidence to indicate if any of these
would come forward in the next 5 years. There are also, it is asserted,
numerous major applications for housing being considered. Nonetheless, as
these sites are not been included in the trajectory, I have little evidence
whether these would be deliverable.
72. Therefore, despite the Council’s arguments, the future supply in the borough,
at the current time is deeply concerning.
Conclusion on housing land supply
73. Considering my conclusions on the additional supply and the disputed sites, the
housing land supply would reduce to 1.82 years. This reflects the appellant’s
conclusions. Additionally, the lack of supply beyond year 3 is deeply
concerning; and, even if I had taken account of the additional supply, the
Council would still not have a 5 year housing land supply and the past trend of
additional supply is not projected to continue.
Provision of market and affordable housing
74. The state of housing land supply is such that very significant weight should be
given to the delivery of housing generally. Additionally, the Council could
provide me with no ‘better’ sites for development. The site has good
accessibility to facilities and services using a genuine choice of transport
modes.
75. Furthermore, the proposal would deliver 40% affordable housing. This would be
policy compliant (with JCS SD12) and there is an accepted need for 126
affordable houses per annum in Tewkesbury. The appellant asserts there will
be a shortfall of 333 affordable dwellings in the next 5 years. The Council does
not dispute this, and the delivery of this site would double the affordable
housing stock in the village.
76. Although I heard comments from interested parties that there is little need for
affordable housing in the village itself, on the substantive evidence before me,
there is little affordable housing stock in the village and there is a clear need in
the Borough. This proposal would deliver a considerable amount of affordable
housing, which is a benefit of significant weight.
Ecology and biodiversity
77. The proposal would produce net gains in biodiversity from the creation of
attenuation features, with permanent water elements, tree planting and
wildflower grassland within areas of open space. It would create around 17%
net gain for habitat areas and about 83% net gain for linear features. This is a
significant benefit in favour, providing more net gains than would be necessary.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
78. The proposal is near to Cleeve Common Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), Dixton Wood Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Bredon Hill SAC,
such that development of the site could have a significant effect upon the
important interest features of the sites. These effects would be the increase in
people who may visit the SSSI and SACs for recreational purposes, and this
could adversely affect the integrity of the sites.
79. The Shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment (SHRA) carried out by the
appellant details that fewer than 1 additional visitor (0.79) would be likely to
visit either the Dixton Wood SAC or Bredon Hill SAC annually. Therefore,
recreational pressure would not be likely and there would be no adverse effects
either alone or in-combination on the integrity of the SACs.
80. However, future residents may use Cleeve Common more frequently and the
SHRA advises that new homeowners should be made aware that, in order to
maintain the conservation value of the SSSI, livestock may be grazing on the
common. As such, dogs should be kept under control and walkers should be
vigilant. Homeowner information packs (HIPs) should be provided to all new
residents, outlining informal recreational assets in the area and key
‘Countryside Code’ messages.
81. With the HIPs, the potential adverse effect would be avoided, and the integrity
of the site would not be adversely affected. The aim of this would be to direct
new residents to other sites, avoiding the SSSI. Natural England have no
objections to the proposal on this basis.
82. I am satisfied that the HIP could be effectively secured by condition, and
having undertaken the appropriate assessment, I am satisfied that the scheme
would not adversely affect the integrity of the nearby habitats sites.
Public Open Space
83. The amount of public open space on site would exceed the standards set out in
Policy RCN1 of the LP, and this would be of a moderate benefit to the scheme.
Economy
84. The development would have an economic benefit through the provision of jobs
over the construction period as well as the contribution the local economy
throughout the lifetime of the development. The appellant purports £3.4M
gross value added per annum and £1.1M per annum on retail expenditure.
However, all residential development of this scale is likely to deliver similar
benefits, and this weighs moderately in favour.
Highways
85. Despite assertions from local residents, the substantive evidence presented on
highway matters indicates that the surrounding highway network has sufficient
capacity to accommodate the additional traffic resulting from the proposed
development. Therefore, there would be no harm caused to the safety of users
of the highway, nor any adverse effect upon capacity.
Planning obligations
86. There are several planning obligations. An agreement with Gloucester County
Council obliges the payment of education contributions, a libraries contribution
and a travel plan monitoring fee. It also obliges the developer to provide for
bus stop upgrade works. The CIL Compliance Statement adequately sets out
sufficient justification for the education and libraries contribution and
monitoring fees, along with the requirement for bus stop upgrades. All these
obligations would be necessary to make the development acceptable, directly
related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
87. The travel plan monitoring fee would pay for monitoring associated with the
submitted Travel Plan. During the Inquiry, I raised questions over whether the
Travel Plan was necessary, given the consultation response from the Council’s
Highways team. Based on the evidence I heard, the Travel Plan would
encourage a modal shift towards sustainable travel, which would be in
accordance with the Framework, and thus the obligation would be necessary.
Furthermore, access to Bishops Cleeve on the PRoW would be difficult in
inclement weather and the Travel Plan could encourage means of
transportation other than a private car. Therefore, the monitoring fee would be
necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related and fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind.
88. A second obligation is with the Council. This would deliver at least 40%
affordable housing, the onsite MUGA and LEAP (and their transfer to a
management company), along with a refuse and recycling contribution and a
monitoring fee. The CIL Compliance Statement submitted with the appeal sets
out how each obligation would meet the tests in the CIL Regulations and the
Framework. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that each obligation
contained in the second agreement would meet the tests, in that they are all
necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related and fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind.
89. The last obligation is in a unilateral undertaking, which provides for the MPCA.
The Council contests that this would not be compliant with the tests in the
Framework. I disagree. Following on from my conclusions on the main issues,
the MPCA would deliver a social benefit for the community, providing a meeting
place and social focal point for residents of all ages. It would also enable an
area where views of the AONB could be appreciated over a longer period than
on the existing PRoWs. I consider it would be necessary to make the
development acceptable. It is directly related to the development and fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Planning Balance
90. The proposal would conflict with the spatial strategy of the area and the NDP.
It is clearly not plan-led development. However, given my conclusions on the
housing land supply, the policies which govern the spatial strategy and housing
development in the area are deemed out of date by Framework paragraph 11
d). Because of the very poor housing land supply position, this indicates that
the spatial strategy is not effective and therefore these policies are of limited
weight.
91. There would be limited harm to landscape character and appearance of the
area and the setting of the AONB, and moderate harm to views from the AONB.
This would conflict with the JCS, NDP, LP, Framework 172 and the MP in this
regard. However, the harm is limited for the purposes of the character and
appearance of the area and this attracts limited weight against the proposal.
Nevertheless, I give great weight to the moderate harm to the AONB as
required by the Framework.
92. In favour of the development is the provision of housing in general, affordable
housing, net gains in biodiversity and the delivery of on site facilities that would
contribute towards the village’s social wellbeing. The delivery of affordable and
market housing would be a very significant benefit, of overriding importance
when considering the chronic housing land supply position. The net gains in
biodiversity are of considerable weight and the on site public open space would
be of moderate weight. Additionally, there would be economic benefits during
construction and from the additional residents that would contribute towards
spending in the area. This is of moderate weight.
93. Framework paragraph 11 d) requires permission to be granted unless [i.] the
application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of
particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development
proposed. Even giving great weight to the moderate harm to the AONB, it is
my view that this does not provide a clear reason for refusing the development.
94. Taking account of all the above, the adverse impacts of granting planning
permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As
such, the material considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance
with the development plan.
Conditions
95. In addition to the conditions I have already detailed above, the plans are listed
for certainty. Furthermore, a condition requiring general compliance with the
illustrative details ensures the reserved matters presented are those envisaged
by the Council. Despite the Council’s suggestion, reserved matters would
include layout, and this would comprise internal access roads such that a
separate reserved matter for access would be unnecessary.
96. A Construction Ecological Management Plan and a Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan are necessary to ensure proper provision is made to
safeguard protected species and their habitats. A Construction Method
Statement is necessary to reduce the potential impact on the public highway,
accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies and ensure the effect
upon residential living conditions during construction is not adverse.
Archaeological investigations are necessary to ensure any archaeological
remains are recorded and investigated.
97. To ensure safe access to the site for construction works, a condition requiring
the access to be provided is necessary. Foul and surface water details are
required to ensure the development is provided with a satisfactory means of
drainage. A footpath from the site to nearby roads would need to be installed
prior to occupation to ensure safe and suitable access on foot. A lighting
scheme is required to safeguard protected species and their habitats, along
with ensuring the village remains a low light pollution area.
98. To ensure that an appropriate housing mix is delivered to contribute to the
creation of mixed and balanced communities compliant with the NDP, a housing
mix statement would be necessary. A Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural
Method Statement to ensures protection of trees. A condition restricting the
reserved matters to 50 dwellings is necessary for certainty.
99. I have not included conditions relating to proposed ground levels, landscaping
and electric vehicle charging, as these details would be proposed at reserved
matters, thus they are not necessary. The condition for site waste management
has been included in the Construction Method Statement.
Conclusion
100. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Katie McDonald
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
For the Local Planning Authority:
Jeremy Patterson Solicitor and Principal Planning Lawyer,
Tewkesbury Borough Council
He called
Phil Williams Council’s planning witness
BA Hons MSC MBA MRTPI
Stuart Ryder Director, Ryder Landscape Consultants Ltd
BA (Hons) CMLI
Gary Spencer Planning solicitor, One Legal
LLB (Hons)
Keith Warren Associate Director, Astbury Planning Consultants
BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI
Stephen Hawley Highways Development Management Team
IENG FIHE MCIHT MTPS Leader, Gloucestershire County Council
Adam White Senior Planner, Tewkesbury Borough Council
MRTPI
Bryn Howells Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Officer,
Tewkesbury Borough Council
Bridgette Boucher Solicitor, Gloucestershire County Council
For the appellant:
Killian Garvey of Counsel Instructed by J J Gallagher Limited and Mr
Richard Cook
He called
Mark Sitch Senior Partner, Barton Willmore LLP
BSc (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI
Ben Connolley Associate Landscape Architect, The Environmental
BSc (Hons) PG DipLA Dimension Partnership Ltd
CMLI
Matthew Grist Director, Jubb
BSc Dip UD MCIHT MCILT
For the Cotswolds Conservation Board Rule 6 Party:
John Mills Planning and Landscape Lead, Cotswolds
BEng (Hons) MSc MRTPI Conservation Board
Interested parties:
Eddie McLarnon CPRE
Simon Tarling Gotherington Parish Council
Caroline Ryman Local resident
Philip Cule Local resident
Michael Stevens Local resident
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
ID1 Appellant Opening Submissions
ID2 Local Planning Authority Opening Submissions
ID3 Rule 6 Opening Submissions
ID4 Inspector’s Report and Secretary of State Decision Letter for
APP/G1630/W/17/3184272
ID5 Mr Tarling’s submissions
ID6 Local Plan Examining Inspector’s Preliminary Questions
ID7 Tewkesbury Borough Council’s response to Examining Inspector’s
Preliminary Questions
ID8 Sport England objection to the details relating to condition 8 (Site Wide
Masterplan Document) of planning application re 17/00520/OUT
ID9 Suggested site visit points – Mr Tarling
ID10 Written comments from Mr Stevens
ID11 Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan – Report of Examination extract
ID12 Appellant’s note on 5 year housing land supply in the Pre-Submission
Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031.
ID13 Mrs Ryman’s closing statement
ID14 Gotherington Primary School Admissions Policy 2021
ID15 Site visit route
ID16 Cotswolds AONB Landscape Strategy and Guidelines Introduction
ID17 CPRE statement
ID18 Rule 6 Closing Submissions
ID19 Local Planning Authority Closing Submissions
ID20 Appellant Closing Submissions
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter
called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority before any development takes
place and the development shall be carried out as approved.
2) Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date
of this permission.
3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (Drawing No. BM-M-
04 Revision B), Land Use Plan (Drawing No. BM-M-02) and Site Access
(Drawing No. SK_002 Revision P1) September 2019.
5) No development shall take place until a Construction Ecological
Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include, but not limited
to the following:
i) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities
including provisions for protected species,
ii) Identification of ‘biodiversity protection zones’ including (but not
exclusively) hedgerows and mature trees,
iii) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be
provided as a set of method statements),
iv) The locations and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to
biodiversity features (e.g. daylight working hours only starting one
hour after sunrise and ceasing one hour after sunset),
v) The times during construction when ecological or environmental
specialists need to be present on site to oversee works,
vi) Responsible persons and lines of communication,
vii) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works
(ECoW) or similar person,
viii) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs; and
ix) Ongoing monitoring, including compliance checks by a competent
person(s) during construction and immediately post-completion of
construction works.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the
construction period in accordance with the approved details.
6) No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The LEMP shall cover the first ten years of
management following the commencement of construction and enabling
works. Enhancement measures should be included for existing natural
habitats and created habitats, as well as those for protected species. All
Ecological enhancements outlined in the LEMP will be implemented as
recommended in the LEMP and the number and location of ecological
features to be installed should be specified.
7) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or
successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of
archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation
which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority.
8) No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement
(CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The CMS shall:
i) provide for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
ii) provide for the loading and unloading of plant and materials
iii) provide for the storage of plant and materials used in constructing
the development
iv) provide for wheel washing facilities
v) specify the intended hours of delivery and construction operations
vi) include measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during
construction
vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from
construction works; setting out measures for dealing with such
materials to minimise overall waste and to maximise re-use,
recycling and recovery in line with the waste hierarchy
viii) construction lighting scheme
The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the construction
period.
9) No development above ground level shall commence until the site access
has been provided in accordance with the submitted plan SK_0002
Revision P1. The first 20m of the access road from Ashmead Drive shall
be surfaced in a bound material and the access shall be retained and
maintained in that form until and unless adopted as highway
maintainable at public expense.
10) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water and
foul water drainage works shall have been implemented in accordance
with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The information submitted shall
be in accordance with the principles set out in the approved drainage
strategy. The submitted details shall:
i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the
method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged
from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the
receiving groundwater and/or surface waters
ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and,
iii) provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the
development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by
any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other
arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its
lifetime.
11) Prior to first occupation of any individual dwelling, a footpath to that
dwelling including connections to Aggs Close and Ashmead Drive, shall be
completed to a minimum of 2m wide with bound surfacing.
12) Prior to first occupation, details of external lighting shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall
clearly demonstrate that lighting will not cause excessive light pollution
or disturb or prevent bat species using key corridors, forage habitat
features or accessing roost sites. The details shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
i) A drawing showing sensitive areas and/or dark corridor safeguarding
areas.
ii) Description, design or specification of external lighting to be installed
including shields, cowls or blinds where appropriate,
iii) A description of the luminosity of lights and their light colour
including a lux contour map.
iv) A drawing(s) showing the location and where appropriate the
elevation of the light fixings.
v) Methods to control lighting control (e.g. timer operation, passive
infrared sensor (PIR)).
All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications
and locations set out in the approved details. These shall be maintained
thereafter in accordance with these details.
13) Prior to first occupation, a Homeowner Information Pack (HIP) setting out
the location and sensitivities of the Cleeve Common Site of Special
Scientific Interest shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The HIP shall include reference to the
sensitivities of the sites, messages to help the new occupiers and their
families enjoy informal recreation at the site and how to avoid negatively
affecting it, alternative locations for recreational activities and off road
cycling and recommendations to dog owners for times of year dogs
should be kept on lead when using the site (i.e. to avoid disturbance to
livestock). Two copies of the HIP shall be provided to all future residents
prior to occupation of each dwelling.
14) The approved Travel Plan (Reference: 15163-TA-V2) shall be
implemented in accordance with the details and timetable therein, and
shall be continued thereafter with the exception that the Travel Plan
monitoring period shall be a minimum of 5 years.
15) Applications for the approval of the reserved matters shall be generally in
accordance with the principles and parameters described in the Design
and Access Statement (October 2019) and the Illustrative Site Layout
BM-M-01 Revision A.
16) The reserved matters shall include a Housing Mix Statement to setting
out an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to be
provided on site that will contribute to a mixed and balanced housing
market. It will address the needs of the local area and of older people, as
set out in the local housing evidence base, including the most up-to-date
Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the area at the time of the
submission of the relevant reserved matters. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved Housing Mix Statement.
17) The reserved matters shall include a scheme for the protection of
retained trees and hedgerows, in accordance with the most up-to-date
BS 5837, including a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and an Arboricultural
Method Statement (AMS). All construction works shall be implemented in
strict accordance with the approved details.
18) The reserved matters shall propose no more than 50 dwellings.
***END OF CONDITIONS***