BOROUGH COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Committee: Planning

Date: 17 November 2020

Site Location: Land Off A38

Application No: 20/00140/OUT

Ward: Severn Vale North

Parish: Leigh

Proposal: Outline application for up to 150 dwellings, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping. Construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A38 and pedestrian access to the A4019.

Report by: Bob Ristic

Appendices: Site location plan Indicative site layout plan Land use access plan Building height plan

Recommendation: Minded to Refuse

1.0 Purpose of the Report

This application was made to the Council on 5th March 2020. Since that date the Council's officers and a number of consultees have tried to work proactively with the appellant, in accordance with guidance set out in paragraph 38 of the NPPF, so that the application could be put into an appropriate condition for presentation to this Committee. However the applicant has decided to lodge an appeal in respect of the application with the Secretary of State (a 'non-determination' appeal) before matters of concern could be fully discussed or resolved. The Council must therefore advise the Secretary of State of its views on the proposals.

2.0 Site Description and Proposal

2.1 The application site comprises a field located to the northeast of the junction of the A4019 and A38 at Coombe Hill and measure approximately 4.9 hectares in area. (See attached location plan)

2.2 To the north of the site is Grange Farm and a dwelling at Fairview, to the south of the site is petrol filling station and convenience store (PFS) and to the east is open countryside and a dwelling at The Bellows, which fronts the A4019. On the opposite side of the A38 to the west, is a former vineyard which adjoins the Swann Inn.

2.3 The site slopes down to the south-eastern corner and is enclosed by hedgerow and tree planting to the northern, eastern and western edges, and a chain-link fence along the southern boundary with the A4019.

2.4 The site is not subject to any landscape designations and is included as a draft allocation in the pre-submission Local Plan (see below). The A38 and A4019 are designated Public transport corridors on the proposals map to the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (March 2006) and is in proximity to the Coombe Hill Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The application site is also located within Flood Zone 1 as identified on the Gov.uk Flood Maps for Planning.

2.5 The application seeks outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for up to 150 dwellings, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping. Construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A38 and pedestrian access to the A4019.

2.6 The application is also accompanied by an Environmental Statement as the proposed development constitutes EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)( and Wales) Regulations with particular regard to the potential impacts of the development upon designated ecological sites.

3.0 Relevant Planning History

Application Proposal Decision Decision Number Date

17/01337/OUT Outline application for up to 40 dwellings, associated Resolution to infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and Permit landscaping with vehicular and pedestrian access from A38. All matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) reserved for future consideration. 18/00173/FUL Land adjacent to the Swan Inn (opposite this site) - Resolution to Residential development comprising 25 no. Permit dwellings, with new vehicular/pedestrian access onto A38, relocation of bus stop, sustainable drainage and Foul Treatment Works and associated landscaping, access and parking.

4.0 RELEVANT POLICY

4.1 The following planning guidance and policies are relevant to the consideration of this application:

National guidance

4.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).

Gloucester, and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (JCS) - Adopted 11 December 2017

4.3 Policies: SP1, SP2, SD3, SD4, SD6, SD8, SD9, SD10, SD11, SD12, SD14, INF1, INF2, INF3, INF4, INF5, INF6, INF7

Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 - March 2006 (TBLP)

4.4 Policies: TPT3, TPT6

Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 – Pre-Submission Version (October 2019)

4.5 Policies: RES2, RES3, RES4, RES5, RES12, RES13, DES1, NAT1, NAT3, ENV2, RCN1, COM2, COM4, TRAC1, TRAC2, TRAC3, TRAC9

Neighbourhood Plan

4.6 The Parish of The Leigh is a designated Neighbourhood Area and the Parish Council are in the process of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

4.7 Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life)

4.8 The First Protocol, Article 1 (Protection of Property)

4.9 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

The Leigh Parish Council – Object - Coombe Hill originally recommended to provide 18 dwellings revised up to 76 in TBP - NDP in preparation - 150 houses would be disproportionate to site and settlement - Site specific PSTBP policy ignored - Should be low density development 20dph - Housing estate design would not be in keeping - No mains sewer - Past flooding, SuDS would not cope - Congestion at peak times. proposed M5 J10 works would increase traffic - Local schools oversubscribed - Impact on SSSI - Site is on a prominent ridge sensitive to conspicuous to development

Deerhurst Parish Council – Would add to traffic congestion - Insufficient amenities and schools - Impact of surface water drainage

Norton Parish Council – Object - Exceeds recommended numbers - Impact of 150 dwellings on environment - Impact of water run-off - Highway safety

Natural England – Object as further habitats regulations assessment work is required.

Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust – Object - Proposal could have a significant adverse impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Special Protection Area (SPA).

County Education – Contributions required towards schools and libraries

Highways England – No objection subject to conditions

Gloucestershire Highways – No objection subject to conditions

Lead Local Flood Authority – Insufficient information has been provided

Conservation Officer – No objection subject to restrictions on ridge heights

Urban Design officer – Objects as, amongst other things, the layout does not demonstrate satisfactorily that 150 units can be accommodated and achieve a high standard of design.

Housing and Enabling Officer – No objection subject to agreeing mix and tenure

Environmental Health (Air Quality) – No objection subject to conditions

Environmental Health (Noise) – No objection subject to conditions

County Archaeologist – No objection subject to conditions

Sports England – No objections

CPRE – Would contribute to housing numbers - Site is on a ridge and conspicuous - Light pollution should be controlled - Coombe Hill Nature Reserve should be protected

Stagecoach West – Support application, Coombe Hill is exceptionally well endowed with public transport choices with frequent bus services.

Severn Trent Water – No objections subject to condition

Wales and West Utilities – No objections

Ecological Adviser – Further information required

6.0 Publicity and representations

6.1 The application has been publicised through a press notice and the posting of a site notice for a period of 21 days. 26 representations have been received in response. The comments raised are summarised below:

- Contrary to emerging Borough Plan Policy - Increased traffic, crossing will add to congestion - Increased air pollution and noise pollution - Increase flood risk - Discharge would be faster than greenfield site - Light pollution from street lights - Impact on nature reserve, increased visitors/dog walkers will impact ground nesting birds - Nature reserve and SSSI proposed as open space for development - Hedgerow would be removed and should be retained - Landscape harm - site is visually sensitive to development - Detrimental to amenity and surroundings, overlooking - Poor quality design, urban character and density of 32 dph inappropriate for the area - Houses would be between 10.5 and 12.5 metres in height - 25 dwellings already permitted and meet local demand - 300% increase in village - Would impact social cohesion and village character - No local facilities - Lack of sewage provision - No recreation provision - No renewable energy provision wind/solar

7.0 POLICY CONTEXT

7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

7.2 The Development Plan currently comprises the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) (2017), the saved policies of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (March 2006) (TBLP), and a number of 'made' Neighbourhood Development Plans. The Parish of The Leigh is a designated Neighbourhood Area and the Parish Council are in the process of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan. However the NDP policies are yet to be published and have not been out to consultation.

7.3 The Pre-Submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan (PSTBP) was submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 18th May 2020 for examination. On the basis of the stage of preparation it has reached it is considered that the plan can be afforded at least moderate weight. However, the weight to be attributed to individual policies will be subject to the extent to which there are unresolved objections (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) and their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies to those in the NPPF the greater the weight that may be given).

7.4 Other material policy considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its associated Planning Practice Guidance.

7.5 The relevant policies are set out in the appropriate sections of this report.

Principle of Development

8.1 With the exception of a cluster of dwellings at The Wharf, Coombe Hill is a dispersed linear settlement along the A38 and broadly centred on the Junction with the A4019, where there is a public house, petrol filling station with convenience store and a farm shop. The area also includes bus stops which link Cheltenham and Gloucester with Tewkesbury. The appeal site would be located amongst this cluster of development and is not therefore be considered isolated. However while Coombe Hill is identified as a Service Village, it does not have a defined settlement boundary. Instead the PSTBP proposes to allocate 2 sites for residential development within the settlement.

8.2 Policy SP1 of the JCS sets out the overall strategy concerning the amount of development required, and Policy SP2 sets out the distribution of new development. These two policies, combined with Policy SD1 on the economy, provide the spatial strategy for the plan. This strategy, together with its aims, is expressed in relevant policies throughout the plan and will be supported by forthcoming district plans and neighbourhood plans.

8.3 Policy SP1 sets out that Tewkesbury Borough's needs (at least 9,899 new homes) will be provided through existing commitments, development at Tewkesbury Town in line with its role as a market town, smaller-scale development meeting local needs at Rural Service Centres and Service Villages, and sites covered by any Memoranda of Agreement.

8.4 Policy SP2 sets out that development at rural service centres and service villages will be allocated through the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Neighbourhood Plans, proportional to their size and function, and also reflecting their proximity and accessibility to Cheltenham and Gloucester and considering the environmental, economic and social impacts including existing levels of growth over the plan period and that Rural Service Centres are to accommodate in the order of 1,860 new homes and the Service Villages in the order of 880 new homes.

8.5 Coombe Hill is a Service Village and in this respect, new housing in this location would be broadly consistent with the JCS spatial strategy. The ‘indicative’ housing requirement for the Rural Service Centres and Service Villages is a disaggregation of policy SP2 (Para 5.ii) allocation (880 dwellings) according to the size, function, proximity/accessibility of the location to Cheltenham/Gloucester. Coombe Hill is given an indicative requirement of 22 dwellings and 3 dwellings have already been committed at the village during the plan period as well as resolution to permit a total of 65 dwellings on this site, and a further site at the Swan Inn on the opposite side of the A38.

8.6 Policy SP2 also provides that in the remainder of the rural area, Policy SD10 will apply to proposals for residential development. Policy SD10 sets out the Council's approach to housing development and states that residential development will be permitted at sites allocated for housing through the development plan. Proposals on un-allocated sites will only be permitted under certain circumstances, none of which presently apply to the proposed development. Notwithstanding the Council's intention to allocate sites for housing within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan the current application is in conflict with this policy.

8.7 Policy RES1 of the PSTBP proposes to allocate two sites for housing development at Coombe Hill. Site COO1, (this application site) is indicated as having a capacity of 50 dwellings. The proposal for up to 150 dwellings at the site would therefore represent a 300% increase over the indicative capacity set out in the emerging plan and the proposal would conflict with this emerging policy.

8.8 While the proposal conflicts with policy RES1, it should be noted that while the PSTBP is well advanced and has been subject to consultation, there are nevertheless objections to the policy and allocation of the application site for housing development, for many of the same reasons that objections have been made to this planning application set out in Section 5 of this report. Because of the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the fact that there are unresolved objections, the weight that can be afforded it is reduced in accordance with Paragraph 48 of the NPPF (2019). This is of course in the context that the Council has already resolved to permit 40 dwellings on the site.

Council’s 5 Year Housing Land Supply

8.9 Whilst the proposal is contrary to Policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS and Policy RES1 of the emerging Borough Plan, it is also currently the case that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5- year supply of deliverable housing sites. It is the Council's current position (as of 1st April 2020 and covering the period from 2020/21 to 2024/25) that a 4.37 year supply of deliverable housing sites can be demonstrated. In these circumstances, the NPPF advises at Paragraph 11 that the presumption should be that planning permission is granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance (including those relating to habitats sites listed at paragraph 176 of the Framework and/or sites of Special Scientific Interest) provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or there are adverse impacts of doing so which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole. Paragraph 177 also sets out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment because of its potential impact on habitat sites is being determined.

8.10 The development site has the potential to affect the Seven Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Coombe Hill SSSI. A judgment must therefore be made as to whether the proposed residential development of up to 150 dwellings would adversely impact these protected areas and whether these impacts provide a clear justification for refusing permission before a view can be made as to whether the 'tilted balance' applies in this instance.

Biodiversity

8.11 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF sets out that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing landscapes and sites of biodiversity, minimising impacts on and providing net gains. Paragraph 175 advises that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from development cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused and development on land within or outside if a Site of Special Scientific Interest which is likely to have an adverse effect on it should not normally be permitted.

8.12 JCS Policy SD9 sets out that the biodiversity and geological resources of the JCS area will be protected and enhanced in order to establish and reinforce ecological networks that are resilient to current and future pressures and PSTBB policy NAT1 requires development to conserve and where appropriate enhance biodiversity and that proposals likely to have a significant effect on an internationally designated habitat site will not be permitted unless a Habitats Regulations Assessment concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitat site. Site specific Policy COO1 sets out that the council will expect the proposal to contribute to the wider green infrastructure network, deliver biodiversity net gains and mitigate against increased recreational pressures on the Coombe Hill Canal SSSI.

8.13 The application has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) in respect of Biodiversity. The submitted details assess on and off-site ecological resources and impacts. The details also propose specific mitigation measures in respect of recreational pressures upon the Severn Estuary and Coombe Hill SSSI, including homeowner packs, circular walking routes, a dog dip and contributions to signage and future maintenance.

8.14 Natural England have advised that the application could, in combination with other new residential development in the Council’s area, have potential significant effects on wild birds designated as part of the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). Furthermore, the submitted ‘shadow HRA’ proposes mitigation that relies in part on the Coombe Hill Canal SSSI and wider Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust Coombe Hill Meadows nature reserve, land which is considered to be functionally linked to the Severn Estuary SPA (by virtue of its use by wild birds forming features of the classified SPA). The associated package of mitigation measures presented by the applicant is based on dialogue with Natural England which focused on the application site’s status as an allocation for up to 50 homes in the emerging local plan. In the absence of additional, alternative informal recreation space for the significantly increased number of new homes proposed, it has not been demonstrated that the adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA could be avoided or mitigated. Natural England therefore take the view that Planning permission should not be granted at this stage and arrangements should be made for discussion to understand the scope for suitable open space to be secured.

8.15 In terms of onsite mitigation and ecological enhancements, the Council’s ecological adviser has set out that In order to assess the change in biodiversity caused by the proposed development, a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) assessment should be undertaken and a positive biodiversity net gain in habitats and linear features is required. To achieve this, amendments to the scale of the scheme are considered to be likely to be necessary. It is also recommended that the protected species mitigation and enhancements are detailed in a Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP), which is also likely to require more natural open green space or offset land within the landscaping scheme, prior to the determination of the application.

8.16 While subsequent discussions have taken place with Natural England and Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, further proposals or acceptable revisions/measures to mitigate the impacts of the development are yet to be submitted. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development and associated recreational pressures would result in an unacceptable impact upon the Severn Estuary SPA, Coombe Hill Canal SSI and Coombe Hill Meadows GWT nature reserve. Given these impacts upon these habitat sites, there is a clear reason for refusing the proposed development, and consequently the tilted balance at paragraph 11 of the NPPF is not engaged.

Drainage and Flood Risk

8.17 Paragraph 163 of the NPPF sets out that when determining any planning applications, Local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. JCS Policy INF2 advises that development proposals must avoid areas at risk of flooding and must not increase the level of risk to the safety of occupiers of a site and that the risk of flooding should be minimised by providing resilience and taking into account climate change.

8.18 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, however surface water flood maps show that the southern part of the site is at some risk. The application is supported with a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy and the associated modelling has been provided. The LLFA have reviewed the submitted details and advise that in terms of fluvial risk, part of the site may be at a higher risk of flooding than mapping suggests. Additional modelling of the watercourse and culvert under the A4019 (which is acknowledged as being of an insufficient capacity) will be required to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in the adjoining highway being overtopped or the adjoining dwelling at The Bellows being affected by flood water.

8.19 In terms of surface water it is advised that the site may be susceptible from run-off from the A38 and further information is required to demonstrate how this would be routed and flow rates accommodated within the proposed SuDS drainage system.

8.20 The surface water drainage for the site would be to the watercourse to the east of the site and is proposed to be limited to a rate not exceeding the existing annual average greenfield- runoff rate. This approach is considered acceptable and offers opportunities to manage flow rates, water quality and provide amenity and biodiversity benefits. The submitted details in respect of the SuDS proposal are considered acceptable and appropriate for an outline planning application. However, it is noted that the surface water storage is located within the existing flood plain and would require some fill in levels which would need to be further demonstrated and levels change compensated for elsewhere.

8.21 A number of matters therefore remain unresolved and it is therefore considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding within the site or elsewhere, in conflict with the NPPF and policy INF2 of the JCS.

Landscape Impact

8.22 Policy SD6 of the JCS states that development will seek to protect landscape character for its own intrinsic beauty and for its benefit to economic, environmental and social well-being. Proposals will have regard to local distinctiveness and historic character of different landscapes are required to demonstrate how the development will protect landscape character and avoid detrimental effects on types, patterns and features which make a significant contribution to the character, history and setting of a settlement area. Policy SD9 seeks the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geological resources of the JCS area.

8.23 The Tewkesbury Borough Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study for Rural Service Villages (2014) advises that Coombe Hill is sensitive to conspicuous development on the exposes side slopes of the ridge that would be visible in long distant views and would be at odds with the established settlement pattern (which is loosely cruciform). The application site comprises the south-western pocket of the larger assessed Land Parcel Coo-06 which is identified as having a medium landscape sensitivity and high visual sensitivity and concluded as having a medium landscape character sensitivity.

8.24 The character summary advises that the dominant character (of the larger assessment parcel Coo-06) is open countryside. While the slope is open to wide views it is advised that existing development at the settlement exerts a limited influence at the western and southern edges. It also sets out that new residential development would have a strong influence on the character of the settlement form, however this would be moderated by the presence of existing detracting elements associated with the settlement edge such as the petrol filling station and highway network.

8.25 The application has been accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal and arboricultural survey. The LVA identifies that the site is of medium visual sensitivity, with the presence of detractor elements in the wider area. The report advises that development would not adversely impact the wider character area and that following implementation of landscape and mitigation measures the overall visual impact of the development would be medium to low, with the principle views of the site being from the A38 and B4019.

8.26 While the application site is a proposed allocation in the PSTBP, the introduction of built development upon an existing agricultural field would nevertheless result in landscape harm. This harm is exacerbated given the quantum of proposed development and limited opportunities to provide appropriate landscaping and buffers, however the impact would be tempered to some degree by the presence of hedgerows and trees to the boundaries of the proposed site and adjoining field parcels which would allow filtering of distant views from the north and east. There would be opportunities to provide further screening and landscaping to the development, the details of which would need to form part of any subsequent reserved matters application.

8.27 While the harms may be localised and limited these would be exacerbated by the amount of development proposed and would conflict with JCS policy SD6 and this is a matter which weighs against the proposal.

Design & Layout

8.28 The NPPF sets out that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. This guidance is built upon in the National Design Guide which forms part of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Policy SD4 of the JCS advises that new development should respond positively to, and respect the character of, the site and its surroundings, enhancing local distinctiveness, and addressing the urban structure and grain of the locality in terms of street pattern, layout, mass and form. It should be of a scale, type, density and materials appropriate to the site and its setting.

8.29 Site specific PSTBP Policy COO1 sets out that:

‘The development of this site presents a place making opportunity. The Council will expect:

• the proposal to provide well designed, active frontages along the A38 and A4019 so to enliven the street scene and create a sense of place • accessible public open space to be provided on site for use by the wider community • enhanced pedestrian connectivity to be provided with Site RES1K (Land at Swan PH) and the services and public transport facilities within the village • the proposal to contribute to the wider green infrastructure network, deliver biodiversity net gains and mitigate against increased recreational pressures on the Coombe Hill Canal Site of Special Scientific Interest • the opportunity for a landmark feature on the prominent corner location at junction of A38 and A4019 to be explored and implemented • the density of development to be relatively low, and the layout to be landscape led, so to respect the rural nature of the location and aid assimilation within the wider landscape • the design and layout of development to address the relationship between the proposed dwellings and the adjacent petrol station and car wash facility, so to avoid adverse amenity impacts on future occupiers’.

8.30 While the application is in outline and appearance, layout and scale are reserved matters, the application has been accompanied by a design and access statement which identifies key architectural features of Coombe Hill and how the use of materials and detailing could be incorporated into the development. The report also sets out that the scheme would provide up to 150 2-5 bed dwellings ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 storeys (up to 12 metres) in height.

8.31 In addition, the application has been accompanied by an illustrative masterplan, Landscape and movement plan and a building heights parameters plan which demonstrates how the development including the provision of public open space could be laid out (see attached plans).

8.32 While the submitted illustrative masterplan demonstrates that 150 dwellings could be accommodated on the site, this would however result in a highly urbanised design and layout with extensive use of terraced properties which would be alien to the otherwise spacious and organic character of the settlement. Furthermore, the indicative layout fails to take up the opportunity for a landmark building at the junction if the A38 and A4019 or demonstrate a satisfactory relationship with the petrol filling station given the significant change in levels, which are requirements of Policy COO1.

8.33 The Building Heights Parameters plan proposes significant parts of the site as being suitable for dwellings up to 12 metres in height. While there are examples of 2.5 metre high dwellings in the settlement these are few and far between. Given the rural setting of the site buildings of this height should be limited to key ‘landmark’ plots and not terraces of townhouses which the illustrative site plan when cross referenced to the building height plan would allude to.

8.34 The principle public open space would be to the southern part of the site which is identified as being at risk of flooding and would be dominated by the SuDS pond with a further narrow sliver of land provided around the edge of the site and does not reflect a landscape led scheme as proposed by policy COO1.

8.35 Notwithstanding the fact that the proposal would exceed the proposed allocation of 50 dwellings in PSTBP Policy RES1, the applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposal would meet the requirements of PSTBP Policy COO1 in terms of enlivening the street scene, the creation of a landmark feature or a layout which would be landscape led and low density. Notwithstanding the emerging nature of policy COO1, the proposal would not result in the high quality design required by national and local planning policies and guidance. This is a matter which weighs heavily against the proposals.

Housing mix

8.36 Policy SD11 (Housing Mix and Standards) of the adopted JCS states that housing development will be required to provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures in order to contribute to mixed and balanced communities and a balanced housing market. Development should address the needs of the local area, including the needs of older people as set out in the local housing evidence base, including the most up to date Gloucestershire Local Housing Needs Assessment 2019 (September 2002)(GLHNA) and replaces the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).

8.37 The design and access statement advises that the site would be capable of delivering a mix of dwellings ranging from 2 to 5 bed properties, however no precise mix has been put forward as part of this application. A condition would be required in order to secure an appropriate housing mix for any future reserve matters application in order that the development meets the needs of the Borough and as evidenced by the GLHNA at the time of the reserved matters application.

Affordable housing

8.38 JCS Policy SD12 sets out that on sites outside of strategic allocations, a minimum of 40% affordable housing will be sought, which should be provided on site and should be seamlessly integrated and distributed throughout the development scheme.

8.39 The Councils Strategic Housing Enabling Officer (SHEO) has advised that a development of 150 dwellings should provide 60 affordable units with a tenure split (75%/25%) which would result in 45 social rented units and 15 shared ownership units. The Officer has proposed the following mix of accommodation.

Social Rent Shared Ownership Total 1 bed bungalow 2 - 2 1 bed apartment/maisonette 14 - 14 2 bed bungalow 2 - 2 2 bed house (4 person) 12 8 20 3 bed house (5 person) 10 7 17 4 bed house (7 person) 4 - 4 5 bed house (8 person) 1 - 1 Total 45 15 60

8.40 Nevertheless, at this stage there is no agreed planning obligation to secure appropriate affordable housing in accordance with local needs and, whilst this is capable of resolution in advance of the appeal, it is currently a matter which weighs against the proposal.

Access and Highway Safety

8.41 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF sets out that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. Furthermore, development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Policy INF1 of the JCS requires that developers should provide safe and accessible connections to the transport network to enable travel choice for residents and commuters.

8.42 The level of service provision in the immediate area is relatively basic (it has a general store, petrol station, a public house, farm shop and a mobile library), with some existing employment opportunities within walking distance at Knightsbridge Business Park. The application site is however located approximately 5 miles from the centre of Cheltenham and 3 miles from the services and employment opportunities at the north-western edge of the town. Gloucester City Centre is located approximately 6.5 miles from the site and Tewkesbury town centre is 4 miles away. All of these destinations are accessible by public transport with bus services operating during peak hours and are within cycling distance which contributes to the sustainability of the site.

8.43 As a result of this proximity and accessibility to Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, Gloucester and associated employment opportunities, it is considered that the suggested level of development resulting from the identified site options in the PSTBP would be consistent with the requirement of Paragraph 103 of the NPPF for significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

8.44 Highways England have raised no objections in principle to the proposed development in respect of the operation of the Strategic Highway Network however the HE officer has recommended that the development does not exceed 150 dwellings and recommend a condition that no more than 40 dwellings are occupied until the approved works to the A40 Longford Roundabout have been completed.

8.45 Whilst access is a reserved matter, the submitted details show how the site could be served by a new estate road from the A38 as well as the provision of a new pedestrian crossing to link to the western side of the A38 and pedestrian and cycle links through the site. The application has been accompanied by a Transport Statement which advises that the site is well located in respect of larger settlements and employment areas as well as good links to the wider strategic road network. Furthermore, the submitted report advises that the area benefits from good bus provision with stops within 400 metres walking distance of the site. In terms of safety, the report advises that while a five-year review of accidents displayed a rate greater than one event per annum, there was no identified correlation between causes or the design of the highway.

8.46 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. The provision of a pedestrian crossing over the A38 improve safety and pedestrian connection to the bus stop and Swan Inn. This would accord with paragraph 108(b) of the NPPF which seeks to ensure safe and suitable access for all users and this could be secured by a suitably worded condition.

8.47 In terms of safety and personal injury, the Gloucestershire highways Officer has reviewed the accident records for the area and confirmed that recorded incidents have no relation to the proposed site access. It is therefore considered that subject to compliance with conditions, safe and suitable access can be achieved without detriment to the operation of the highway network or public safety.

8.48 While access is a reserved matter it is considered that this could be achieved in an acceptable manner with a vehicular access from the A38 and further pedestrian and cycle linkages to the A4019. While the highways officer has identified that some of the submitted details are lacking it is however considered that the details could be secured at the reserved matter stage and by suitably worded conditions. Furthermore, the completion of a legal agreement will be required to secure a Travel Plan monitoring fee and improvement works to the existing bus stops.

Impact on Heritage Assets

8.49 Policy SD8 of the JCS states that designated and undesignated heritage assets and their settings will be conserved and enhanced as appropriate to their significance, and for their important contribution to local character, distinctiveness and sense of place.

8.50 Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving any listed building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest. The NPPF recognises the effect of an application on the significance of a heritage asset is a material consideration. Paragraph 193 states that there should be great weight given to the conservation of designated heritage assets; the more important the asset the greater the weight should be.

8.51 The application was accompanied by an archaeological evaluation and the County Council Archaeologist has advised that while the site contains widespread remains which probably relate to several phases of activity in the prehistoric and Roman period. No evidence was found to indicate any domestic occupation, and the archaeology appears to mainly relate to quarrying and agriculture, with some potential for religious or ritual activity. The county archaeologist raises no objection in principle to the proposed development, on the basis that an appropriate programme of work to excavate and record any significant archaeological is undertaken prior to the development in order to mitigate the ground impacts of this scheme. This can be secured by condition.

8.52 It is noted that there is a Grade II listed barn to the northern part of the yard to Grange Farm. This building is set some distance from the application site and is further separated by Fairview and its curtilage. In view of this relationship and the fact that the application site slopes down towards the southeast, the proposal could preserve the historic significance and setting of the listed building however this will be reliant on the proposed design and scale of the development submitted at any reserved matters stage.

Impact on Amenity of Adjoining Occupiers

8.53 JCS Policy SD14 sets out that development should protect and seek to improve environmental quality and should not cause unacceptable harm to local amenity including the amenity of neighbouring occupants.

8.54 Although the application is in outline it is considered that the development could be laid out so as not to adversely impact the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings at Fairview, Grange Farm or The Bellows, as a result of the topography and existing boundary treatments. The specific relationships to these adjoining dwellings would however be considered at the reserved matters stage.

8.55 The application has been accompanied by a noise assessment which appraises the existing noise environment and sets out the principles to secure a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers. The Council's Environmental Health adviser is satisfied with the proposals but would require specific details of noise mitigation measures to properties and gardens at the reserved matters stage. These details could be secured by condition.

8.56 Concerns have been raised with regards to increased noise and air pollution as a result of the increase in dwellings in the area. However it is considered that the site is located adjacent to a significantly trafficked highway network with associated background noise levels. The addition the proposed dwellings would not in itself result in demonstrable harm in terms of noise or air pollution and no objections have been raised by the Councils Environmental Health adviser in this respect.

8.57 Concerns have been raised with regards to the development and light pollution, this is a matter which could be controlled by condition in order to protect the dark rural character of the area.

Community Infrastructure Levy/Section 106 obligations

8.58 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations allow local authorities to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area.

8.59 On-site requirements (whether they are delivered on or off site), and specific infrastructure requirements that can be robustly justified as necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (and otherwise the application would be refused without that infrastructure) will still be delivered via s106 obligations. The regulations stipulate that, where planning applications are capable of being charged the levy, they must comply with the tests set out in the CIL regulations. These tests are as follows:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

8.60 The CIL Amendment Regulations 2019 came into force on 1 September 2019 and made a number of important changes to the operation of CIL and s106 obligations. Amongst other matters, Regulation 123 of the CIL regulations has been removed in its entirety which removes the restriction on pooling funds for a single infrastructure from more than five s106 obligations. It also allows both CIL and s106 contributions to be secured for the same infrastructure project although the aforesaid tests (Regulation 122) continue to apply.

8.61 The NPPF sets out that local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of planning conditions or obligations. It makes clear that obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.

8.62 JCS policies INF6 and INF7 combine to require infrastructure to be delivered to meet the infrastructure and services required as a consequence of development. Education and libraries. JCS Policy INF6 relates directly to infrastructure delivery and states that any infrastructure requirements generated as a result of individual site proposals and/or having regard to cumulative impact, new development should be served and supported by adequate and appropriate on/off-site infrastructure and services. The Local Planning Authority will seek to secure appropriate infrastructure which is necessary, directly related, and fairly and reasonably related to the scale and kind of the development proposal. JCS Policy INF7 states the arrangements for direct implementation or financial contributions towards the provision of infrastructure and services should be negotiated with developers before the grant of planning permission. Financial contributions will be sought through s106 and CIL mechanisms as appropriate.

8.63 Following consultation with the County Council, it has been advised that the proposed development would give rise to additional pupil yields and would require the following contributions to mitigate the impact. Section 106 contributions are required to be secured towards pre-school, primary and secondary education as well as library provision. The request towards education provision is considered to be directly related to the development and is needed in order to mitigate the education needs arising from the proposal. Officers consider the requested contributions (set out below) to meet the statutory tests and support the position taken by GCC. While specific discussions have not taken place the applicant has advised in their appeal submission that they do not agree to the provision of education and library contributions and dispute the County Council figures.

8.64 In respect of library provision, GCC has confirmed that the scheme would generate additional need for library resources and a contribution of £19,600 (based on the formula of £196 per dwelling) is therefore required to make this application acceptable in planning terms.

8.65 Taking account of consultation responses, this application would result in the following infrastructure requirements to be secured by s106 obligations:

Affordable Housing - 40%

•Education: o Pre-school Pupil Yield – 45; £679,095.00 (Provision in the Churchdown/Innsworth, Bishops Cleeve, or Tewkesbury/Ashchurch Primary Planning Area); o Primary Pupil Yield – 61.5; £928,097.00 (Provision in the Churchdown/Innsworth, Bishops Cleeve, or Tewkesbury/Ashchurch Primary Planning Area); o Secondary 11-16 Pupil Yield – 30; £584,700.00 (Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Secondary Planning Areas). o Secondary 16-18 Pupil Yield – 10.5; £241,626.00 (Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Secondary Planning Areas).

Library contributions - A contribution of £29,400 (based on the formula of £196 per (dwelling)

On site public open space and play – TBC

Ecological Mitigation – TBC

Travel Plan Monitoring Fee – TBC

Bus stop improvement works – TBC

Recycling & waste bins - £73 per dwelling

8.66 There have been no direct discussions and there is no agreement to provide the required community, environment and education facilities. Whilst some of these matters may be able to be agreed in advance of the appeal, the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of the NPPF JCS and this weighs against the proposal.

9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that, if regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless other material circumstances indicate otherwise. Section 70(2) of the Act provides that the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

9.2 On the basis the Council cannot at this time demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, the Council's policies for the supply of housing are out of date. In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, the presumption in favour of sustainable development indicates that permission should be granted unless policies for protecting areas of assets of particular importance in the NPPF provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of permitting the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole. Given that the identified harms to designated habitat sites represents a clear reason why planning permission should be refused the tilted balance is not therefore engaged.

Benefits

9.3 The development would contribute towards the supply of market and affordable housing to help meet the objectively assessed need for housing in the area. This is of particular relevance given the fact that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a deliverable supply of housing however this otherwise significant benefit is tempered by the associated recreational pressures upon habitat sites. Given the scale of development, these benefits are afforded substantial weight.

9.4 There would be further social and economic benefits through employment during the construction phase and spend from future residents which would help sustain the limited local facilities at Coombe Hill, as well as in the wider area.

Harms

9.5 Harm arises from the conflict with development plan policies relating to the delivery of housing and in particular policies SP2 and SD10 and emerging PSTBP Polices RES1 and COO1.

9.6 The proposed development, as a consequence of the number of dwellings, would result in unacceptable recreational pressures upon designated habitat sites and there would be further harm to the landscape by introducing new urban development of this scale.

9.7 The submitted details have failed to demonstrate that a development of the scale proposed could be accommodated upon the site or deliver a high quality development which would complement the character of the settlement.

9.8 The site is at risk from surface water flooding and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not exacerbate the risk of flooding. Whilst it may be able to resolve this matter through further assessment and modelling work, the developer has chosen to appeal non-determination at this stage without resolving these matters.

9.9 The applicant has failed to enter into a legal obligations to secure contributions towards facilities at local schools the demand for which would be directly related to the development, along with the provision of affordable housing, open space, library, travel plan monitoring and ecological mitigation contributions.

Neutral

9.10 Suitable access to the site can be secured and impact upon the highway network mitigated against through appropriately worded conditions. Furthermore, the site is located in a sustainable location and increase in population could sustain the operation of existing public transport in the area.

Overall Conclusion

9.11 While there would be some benefits from the development namely the delivery of housing, this is clearly and demonstrably outweighed by harms in respect of the scale of development proposed, the adverse recreational pressure upon the Coombe Hill SSSI and resultant harms to linked habitat sites. Furthermore the quantum of development proposed would fail result in an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site and would fail to achieve a high quality development on a prominent site. It is therefore considered that the identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance.

9.12 For these reasons it is recommended that the Secretary of State be advised that the Council would be minded to refuse the appeal proposal.

Reason for Refusal:

1) The proposed development conflicts with policies SP1, SP2 and SD10 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (December 2017) and Policies RES1 and COO1 of the Pre-Submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 (October 2019) in that the proposed development does not meet the strategy for the distribution of new development in Tewkesbury Borough and the application site is not an appropriate location for new residential development of the scale proposed.

2) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the quantum of development could be accommodated upon the site in a manner which would respond positively to, and respect the character of the site and its surroundings or the settlement of Combe Hill. For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts with Policies SD4 and SD6 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (December 2017) Policy COO1 of the Pre-submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3) The proposed Design and Access Statement and Illustrative Masterplan are deficient in terms of the overall design approach, level of detail and contextual analysis, and accordingly fail to demonstrate how key design requirements would translate into a robust, high quality design at the reserved matters stage. As such, the proposed development conflicts with Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (December 2017) Policy COO1 of the Pre-submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the additional recreation pressure brought about by a housing scheme of 150 homes without suitable alternative recreation space on or within a short walk of the application site would not result in an adverse effects on the integrity of the Severn Estuary SPA, specifically with respect to wild birds which use the nearby Coombe Hill Canal SSSI /Coombe Hill Meadows GWT nature reserve. The proposed development conflicts with Policies SD9 and INF3 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (December 2017), Policy COO1 of the Pre- submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not increase the risk of flooding within the site or elsewhere. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy INF2 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (December 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6) In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the proposals do not provide housing that would be available to households who cannot afford to rent or buy houses available on the existing housing market. As such, the proposed development conflicts with Policy SD12 of the Gloucestershire, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

7) The proposed development does not adequately provide for community and education facilities contrary to Policy GNL11 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (March 2006), Policies INF4, INF6 and INF7 of the JCS and the NPPF of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (December 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8) The proposed development does not adequately provide for open space, outdoor recreation and sports facilities and the proposed conflicts with Policies RCN 1 and GNL11 Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (March 2006), Policies INF4, INF6 and INF7 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011 - 2031 (December 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.