CALA Homes Appeal Statement of Case

Statement of Case
Produced by Bruton Knowles

On Instructions from
Cala Homes
Statement of Case for

Residential development up to
28 units, including means of
access and landscaping
At
Land Parcel 0088, Willow Bank Road,
Alderton, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire
BK Reference
SOC170920CH
LPA Reference
19/00772/FUL
September 2020
Contact Details
Prepared Bruton Knowles

by: Olympus House, Olympus Park
Quedgeley, Gloucester GL2 4NF
BK Contacts: David Smart MRTPI T: 01452 880000

Planner E: david.smart@brutonknowles.co.uk
Verity Wood T: 01452 880000

Planner E: verity.wood@brutonknowles.co.uk
Prepared CALA Homes (Midlands) Limited

for: CALA House
Arleston Way
Solihull
Midlands
B90 4LH
Date: 17/09/2020
Version: 1
Contents
Page Number
1 Introduction 2
2 The Appeal Site 3
3 The Appeal Development 5
4 Relevant Policy and Legislation 6
5 Statement of Case 17
6 The Tilted Planning Balance 25
7 Conclusion 28
Appendix A: Decision Notice for Application no. 19/00772/FUL

Appendix B: Committee Report
Appendix C: Appeal Decision: APP/G1630/W/18/3210903 for Land at Fiddington, Ashchurch
Statement of Case Page 1

1. Introduction
1.1. This appeal is submitted on behalf of CALA Homes Limited against the decision of Tewkesbury
Borough Council (TBC) to refuse full planning permission under application no. 19/00772/FUL
for the development of up to 28 units, including means of access and landscaping, on land to
the east of Willow Bank Road, Alderton.
1.2. The reasons for refusal were given in the decision notice, which is provided in Appendix A.
1.3. The appeal site is located to the south of “Phase 1” of the Alder Green development. This
development was allowed at appeal in July 2015, under LPA refence number 14/00414/FUL
and appeal reference APP/G1630/W/14/3001584. This development was built out in 2017 and
there is now full occupation on site.
1.4. The proposal constitutes “Phase 2” of this development.

2. The Appeal Site
2.1. The site is located adjacent to the southern extent of the settlement boundary of Alderton and
is located within TBC’s administrative area. The site is circa 2.2 ha and is currently an area of
grassland.
2.2. The site is bordered on all four sides by hedgerow with the occasional larger tree making up
the southern boundary. There is residential development directly to the north of the site. To
the east there is agricultural land and to the south is a small water course which leads to
Carrant Brook and beyond that further agricultural land. To the west of the side is Willow Bank
Road.
(Application site edged in red. For indicative purposes only)
2.3. There is currently an agricultural access on the western boundary which leads onto Willow
Bank Road.
2.4. The majority of the site is located within flood zone 1 and therefore has a low probability of
flooding. There is an area of flood zone 2/3 to the south and east of the site. These areas have

been left as a green buffer in order to alleviate flooding as well as creating a divide between
the development and the agricultural land to the south.
2.5. Historic England’s mapping system illustrates that there are no heritage assets located in the
site’s immediate vicinity.
2.6. Furthermore, the site is not located within any national based landscape designations, such as
AONB or Greenbelt. The site is however located within a locally designated Special Landscape
Area (LAN1).
2.7. In terms of Alderton, it is identified as a ‘service village’ in the adopted Joint Core Strategy
(JCS), because of its access to services and facilities. The village has a primary school, public
house, post office and village store, village hall, petrol filling station with convenience store, a
pre-school and nursery and children’s play area and playing fields.
2.8. A greater range of services can be found in Winchcombe (4 miles), Bishops Cleeve (6.5 miles),
as well as the larger towns of Tewkesbury (7.5 miles), Evesham (8.5 miles) and Cheltenham (11
miles).
2.9. The nearest bus stops are at the second junction with Willow Bank Road and St Margarets
Road. These bus stops are circa 0.1 miles north of the appeal site and both provide direct
services to Cheltenham, Beckford, Elmbridge, Winchcombe, and Chipping Campden.
2.10. For further information, please see the site description and local amenities and surrounding
context sections provided in the supporting Planning Statement (pg. 5/ prepared by Ridge and
Partner LLP) and Design and Access Statement (pgs. 7 and 13/ prepared by Pegasus Design).

3. The Appeal Development
3.1. The proposed development is sought for the erection of 28 residential dwellings, including 11
affordable units. Full details of the design proposal can be found in section 6 of the supporting
Design and Access Statement (pgs. 35 to 43).
3.2. The housing mix of the proposed development was revised to reflect comments received
throughout the determination of the application. The most recent plans illustrate a mix of the
following house sizes:
- 2 x 1-bedroom homes
3.3. Detailed landscaping set out in the supporting ‘soft landscape proposals plan’ (drawing no.
GL116801B) has been provided to; (1) soften any resulting impacts caused to the surrounding
Special Landscape Area and, (2) to provide a buffer to the area of flood risk located to the south
of the site.
3.4. A new access is proposed from Willowbank Road and there will also be pedestrian access
through the site, which will enable future residents to access the village centre. Parking for all
dwellings is provided onsite in the form of either on plot parking, private driveways or garages.
This is illustrated in the latest supporting ‘site layout plan’ (P16-1145_04 REV: Y).

4. Relevant Policy and Legislation
Local Policy: Development Plan Policy
4.1. Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states planning applications
must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
4.2. With regard to the above paragraph it is useful to refer to a High Court decision, R v Rochdale
Metropolitan Borough Council (2000), where the decision determined that a proposed
development does not have to accord with every policy within a Development Plan.
“Given the numerous conflicting interests that Development Plans seek to

reconcile: the needs for more housing, more employment, more leisure and
recreational facilities, for improved transport facilities, the protection of listed
buildings and attractive landscapes etc., it would be difficult to find any project of
any significance that was wholly in accord with every relevant policy in the
development plan. Numerous applications would have to be referred to the
Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan because one or a
few minor policies were infringed, even though the proposal accords with the
Development Plan considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each and
every policy therein.”
4.3. With the above decision in mind we provide a policy review of the policies outlined in the
reasons for refusal, which are outlined in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) (2017), the Tewkesbury
Borough Local Plan to 2011 (saved policies) and the Alderton Neighbourhood Development
Plan (July 2018).
Joint Core Strategy (JCS) (2017)
4.4. Policy SP2: As set out in the first and second reason of refusal, Policy SP2 identifies that to
meet the needs of Tewkesbury Borough, the JCS will make provision for at least 9,899 new
homes. It identifies that: ‘at least 7,445 dwellings 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.’ Rural service centres and service villages as
identified in Table SP2c below will accommodate lower levels of development to 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 taking into account the 11 environmental, economic and social impacts
including existing levels of growth over the plan period, Over the plan period to 2031: • The
rural service centres will accommodate in the order of 1860 new homes, and; • The service
villages will accommodate in the order of 880 new homes;
4.5. Table SP2c sets out the settlement hierarchy for the area, defining Alderton as a ‘service
village’.
4.6. As set out later on in this report, recent appeal decisions suggest that TBC accept that they
cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Policy SP2, which relates to
housing is therefore out of date and the presumption in favour of sustainable development
applies in accordance with national policy, set out under the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 11).
4.7. Policy SD6: As set out in the third reason of refusal, Policy SD6 relates to the landscape and
states that development will seek to protect landscape character for its own intrinsic beauty
and for its benefit to economic, environmental and social wellbeing. It goes on to highlight that
‘proposals will have regard to the local distinctiveness and historic character of the different
landscapes in the JCS area, drawing, as appropriate, upon existing Landscape Character
Assessments and the Landscape Character and Sensitivity Analysis. They will be required to
demonstrate how the development will protect or enhance 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 or area.’
4.8. We consider that the overall effect on landscape receptors will not be adverse and rather
negligible. A Landscape and Visual Assessment was provided in support of this application to
assess of the proposals impacts. It should be considered that the proposal is not contrary to
policy SD6. If it is decided that a conflict still applies then the tilted balance should be applied
in accordance with the NPPF.

4.9. Further commentary is provided below under the third reason for refusal in section 5.
4.10. Policy “SP10” is listed in the first reason of refusal and we consider that there has been an
oversight and that TBC are actually referring to Policy SD10.
4.11. Policy SD10: As set out in the first reason for refusal, Policy SD10 relates to residential
development and states that within the JCS area, new housing will be planned in order to
deliver the scale and distribution of housing development set out in Policies SP1 and SP2.
‘Housing development will be permitted at sites allocated for housing through the
development plan, including Strategic Allocations and allocations in district and
neighbourhood plans. On sites that are not allocated, housing development and conversions
to dwellings will be permitted on previously-developed land in the existing built-up areas of
Gloucester City, the Principal Urban Area of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury town, rural service
centres and service villages except where otherwise restricted by policies within District plans.’
It goes on to state that on other sites, development will be permitted subject to certain criteria,
none of which would apply in this case.
4.12. TBC accept that they cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and
therefore policy SD10, which relates to housing is therefore out of date and the presumption
in favour of sustainable development is engaged.
4.13. Policy SD11: As set out in the fourth reason for refusal, Policy SD11 seeks for development to
provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures in order to contribute towards
a mixed and balanced community. It goes onto state that, ‘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 Strategic Housing Market Assessment’.
4.14. We consider, after a number of revisions to the housing mix, whilst the application was being
determined, that the mix of affordable units satisfies the requirements set out in the SHMA.
The mix of market units satisfies the most recent requirements set out in the Alderton
Neighbourhood Development Plan. Further commentary on this subject is provided under the
fourth reason for refusal in section 5.

4.15. Policy SD12: As set out in the fifth reason of refusal, Policy SD12 states that JCS authorities will
seek, through negotiation, for new development to deliver new affordable housing on a sliding
scale approach. It goes onto state that 40% affordable housing will be sought within the
administrative area of Tewkesbury Borough Council, to be delivered on site where possible.
4.16. We are providing 11 affordable units out of a total of 28 units on site. This equates to 39.3% of
affordable units provided onsite. The remaining 0.7%, or 0.2 of a unit, will be provided as part
of a commuted sum, which will be agreed in the S.106. The proposal provides an adequate
amount of affordable units and therefore accords with policy SD12.
4.17. Policy INF1: As set out in the seventh reason of refusal, Policy INF1 relates to the transport
network and states that developers should provide safe and accessible connections to the
transport network to enable travel choice for residents and commuters. Planning permission
will be granted only where the impact of development is not considered to be severe.
4.18. We consider that the appeal site provides safe and suitable access for existing and future
residents and the residual cumulative impacts on the road network cannot be considered
severe. It should be considered that the proposal is not contrary to policy INF1. For further
information please see the supporting transport statement, prepared by Mewies Engineering
Consultants, and additional information provided under reason for refusal seven in section 5
of this statement.
4.19. Policy INF4: As set out in the sixth reason of refusal, Policy INF4 states that where new
residential development will create, or add to, a need for community facilities, it will be fully
met as on-site provision and/or as a contribution to facilities or services off-site.
4.20. A S.106 is being prepared by the appellant, this obligation will provide off site contributions
towards community facilities such as education, library provision and off-site outdoor play
facilities. When a S.106 is agreed between both parties the provisions of this policy will be met.
4.21. Policy INF6: As set out in the sixth reason of refusal, Policy INF6 states that where
infrastructure requirements are generated as a result of individual site proposals and/or

having regard to cumulative impact, new development will be served and supported
by adequate and appropriate on-and/or off-site infrastructure and services.
4.22. As set out above, a S.106 is being prepared that will provide off-site contributions towards
infrastructure and services. Again, when a S.106 is agreed between both parties the provisions
of this policy will be met.
4.23. Policy INF7: As set out in the sixth reason of refusal, Policy INF7 states arrangements for direct
implementation or financial contributions towards the provision of infrastructure and services
required as a consequence of development, including its wider cumulative impact, and
provision where appropriate for its maintenance, will be negotiated with developers
before the grant of planning permission. Financial contributions will be sought through the
S106 and CIL mechanisms as appropriate.
4.24. Financial contributions will be sought through a S.106 that is currently being prepared. CIL is
also applicable and will determined after the decision. This policy will be met when a S.106 is
agreed.
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011
4.25. Policy LND1: As set out in the third reason of refusal, Policy LND1 states that the extent of the
area of AONB is shown on the proposals map. In the assessment of proposals for development
within the AONB, overriding priority will be accorded to the conservation of the natural beauty
of the landscape. It goes onto state that development proposals should not adversely affect
the quality of the natural environment, or its visual attractiveness.
4.26. The appeal site is not included within the Cotswold AONB and the Landscape and Visual
Assessment concludes that the accumulative impacts on the landscape from the proposal will
not be severe.
4.27. Further commentary is provided below under the third reason for refusal in section 5.

4.28. Policy RCN1: As set out in the sixth reason of refusal, Policy RCN1 states that within proposed
sites of 10 dwellings on more, provision of outdoor playing space will be expected to be made
in accordance with this standard to cater for the needs of future residents. The provision of
open space may be either on site or via a commuted sum.
4.29. The required provisions set out above will be covered in the S.106 and when this is provided
this policy will be satisfied.
Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018)
4.30. Policy H1: As set out in the first and second reason of refusal, Policy H1 relates to new housing
in Alderton. It states that within the settlement boundary, small windfall development will be
supported together with infill housing development of 1–2 dwellings within existing built-up
frontages when it is consistent with the scale, proportion and density of existing houses and
gardens in the adjacent area. It goes on to state that ‘in the event that a future development
plan identifies an additional need for further housing development in Alderton (as a service
village), beyond what is being accommodated within the settlement boundary, then sites
outside of the boundary will be considered in line with the other policies of the plan.’
4.31. TBC accept that they cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the
NDP is out of date because it is over 2 years old, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
Policy H1 is therefore not relevant and the presumption in favour of sustainable development
should apply.
4.32. Policy H3: As set out in the fifth reason of refusal, Policy H3 states that new affordable housing
will be supported in new developments through the allocation set by the local planning
authority. JCS Policy SD12 (listed above) is of most relevance.
4.33. As set out above the proposal accords with policy SD12, which is the most relevant guidance
relating to the provision of affordable housing.

4.34. Policy LC2: As set out in the third reason of refusals, Policy LC2 seeks for development to take
into consideration any adverse impacts on areas of landscape and visual sensitivity. Proposals
should demonstrate how they will integrate into the Special Landscape Area and the AONB by:
1. Submitting a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment to enable their impact on the

landscape to be assessed;
2. Ensuring that special attention is paid to preserving significant views in or out of
the settlement, or including mitigation measures that ensure such views are
maintained as fully as possible:
3. Providing landscaping to enable new development to integrate into and enhance
the surroundings.
4.35. As noted above a Landscape and Visual Assessment has been provided which outlines
significant views and mitigation that will be provided as part of the development.
4.36. Policy RP2: As set out in the seventh reason of refusal, Policy RP2 states that development
proposals in the Parish which require planning consent should, where possible:
1. Provide onsite parking at a minimum rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling; or

2. Make available in the vicinity of the development some suitable provision for off-
road parking for households and visitors with vans as well as private cars.
4.37. The proposed development has provided and adequate amount of onsite parking in
accordance with the provision set out above. The proposal accords with policy RP2 (please see
the site layout plan (P16-1145_04 REV: Y).
National Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.38. The NPPF was revised and updated in February 2019 and sets out the governments planning
policies for England and how they are expected to be applied.
4.39. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in
favour of sustainable development… For decision-taking this means… d) where there are no

relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining
the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this
Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for
refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework
taken as a whole.”
4.40. The exact figure of the five-year housing land supply for TBC is contested however, it has been
acknowledged in various appeal decisions that Tewkesbury cannot currently demonstrate a 5-
year housing land supply.
4.41. In the latest appeal decision, under appeal reference APP/G1630/W/18/3210903 for Land at
Fiddington, Ashchurch, the inspector concluded in paragraph 52 that ‘the current position is
that there is a serious housing shortfall as demonstrated by the work on the AMR, and the
intended immediate partial review of the JCS is at a very early stage at best. This is an agreed
position and only the quantum of the shortfall is not fully agreed between the parties. If the
approach adopted by the Secretary of State in the Highnam case is adopted the provision is
only 2.77 years, or 4.3 years if the Council’s approach is preferred’.
4.42. Footnote 7 to paragraph 11 provides situations where the most important policies would be
out-of-date. This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where
the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites
(with the appropriate buffer, as set out in paragraph 73); or where the Housing Delivery Test
indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing
requirement over the previous three years.
4.43. The appeal site is located in Alderton which adopted their Neighbourhood Plan in July 2018.
At the time of the decision the neighbourhood plan was therefore considered to be “up-to-
date” and subsequently there were relevant development plan policies to the proposal.
4.44. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that “In situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d)
applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing

development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following apply8:
a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan two years or less
before the date on which the decision is made;
b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified
housing requirement;
c) the local planning authority has at least a three-year supply of deliverable
housing sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the
appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 73); and
d) the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required9
over the previous three years.”
4.45. The Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan was “made” in July 2018. At the time of the
decision it was still considered to be in date. Since then the plan has become 2 years old and
is therefore considered to be “out of date”.
4.46. Further to the above point, it is also acknowledged in the Alderton Neighbourhood
Development Plan that “the housing target for the village has been met through existing
commitments, there is no requirement at present to allocate further housing sites”. Although
map 4 in the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan shows two allocations, both of these
were built out before the plan was adopted. The Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan
therefore does not contain policies and allocations to meet its identified housing need.
4.47. With consideration to paragraph 14, usually local authorities only have to demonstrate a three
year housing land supply, however points (a) and (b) suggest that Alderton’s neighbourhood
plan is now considered “out-of-date” as it is older than 2 years and lacks allocations. In this
case the presumption in favour of sustainable development still applies.
4.48. The definition of “deliverable” provided in the NPPF is “To be considered deliverable, sites for
housing 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.
In particular:

a) sites which do not involve major development and have planning permission, and
all sites with detailed planning permission, should be considered deliverable until
permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that homes will not be delivered
within five years (for example because they are no longer viable, there is no longer
a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans),
b) where a site has outline planning permission for major development, has been
allocated in a development plan, has a grant of permission in principle, or is
identified on a brownfield register, it should only be considered deliverable where
there is clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five
years.”
4.49. There were two allocations included in the Alderton Neighbourhood Plan. Both allocated sites
had been built out and the majority of houses were occupied by the time the plan was adopted.
The allocation does not therefore fall under the above definition of a deliverable site.
4.50. In the Pre-Submission document for the Tewkesbury Borough plan, which has now been
submitted to the secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, there
are no further housing allocation in Alderton.
4.51. In respect of sustainable transport, Paragraph 103 recognises that opportunities to maximise
sustainable transport solutions varies between urban and rural areas and this should be taken
into account in both plan making and decision taking.
4.52. For further information please see the supporting transport statement and additional
information provided under reason for refusal seven in section 5 of this statement.
4.53. When assessing sites for development as set out in Paragraph 108, it should be ensured that •
appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be or have been taken
up, given the type of development its location. • Safe and suitable access to the site can be
achieved for all users; and • Any significant impacts from the development on the transport
network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively
mitigated to an acceptable degree.

4.54. Sustainable transport modes are discussed at length in the transport statement and a summary
has been provided below in section 5.
4.55. Paragraph 109 is clear that development should only be prevented or refused on highways
grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual
cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
4.56. As set out above the appeal site provides a safe and suitable access and it is considered that
impacts on the road network will not be severe. For further information please see the
supporting transport statement.
4.57. As set out in Paragraph 170 planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance
the natural and local environment by, inter alia: • protecting and enhancing valued landscapes,
sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their
statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); • recognising the intrinsic
character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and
ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile
agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; • minimising impacts on and providing net gains
for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient
to current and future pressures;
4.58. Appropriate mitigation measures have been provided and Tyler Grange consider that the
accumulative impacts from the development on the landscape will not be severe. If it is
considered that further mitigation needs to be provided, the appellant is happy to accept this,
as part of a condition, however it should be noted that the Officers report concluded that the
proposal was now considered to be acceptable from an ecology perspective.

5. Statement of Case
5.1. The application was refused by committee on 17th March 2020. The application decision is
presented at Appendix A. The committee report is presented at Appendix B. There are seven
reasons for refusal, all of which have been discussed below.
5.2. The first reason for refusal sets out that : “The proposed development conflicts with Policies
SP2 and SP10 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031
(December 2017) and Policy H1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018)
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.”
5.3. As discussed previously, the development plan policies included in this reason for refusal are
from the JCS and from the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan. The policies focus on
the distribution of housing throughout the district and more specifically in Alderton.
5.4. As discussed in section 4 of this report, TBC cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing
land supply. This coupled with the fact that the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan
does not satisfy all the provisions set under paragraph 14 of the NPPF, means that the
presumption in favour of sustainable development is applied.
5.5. As a result, these policies should be considered out of date and instead the tilted balance
should apply.
5.6. The second reason for refusal is as follows; “The proposed addition of 28 dwellings at Alderton,
in addition to the dwellings recently built at land at Beckford Road and land east of Willow
Bank Road, would result in cumulative development, which would be of a scale
disproportionate to the existing settlement. As such the proposed development would fail to
maintain or enhance the vitality of Alderton and would have a harmful impact on the social
wellbeing of the local community, risking the erosion of community cohesion. As such, the
proposal conflicts with Policy SP2 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core

Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017), Policy H1 of Alderton Neighbourhood Development
Plan (July 2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework”.
5.7. Reason 2 for refusal also references policy SP2 from the JCS and policy H1 from the Alderton
Neighbourhood Development Plan. As stated above these development plan policies relating
to housing should be considered out of date.
5.8. Further to this point the residential developments at both Beckford Road and land east of
Willow Bank Road were granted permission in 2013 and 2015 respectively. In plan making
terms this is a considerable amount of time as paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that “Policies
in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they
need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary”.
5.9. Tewkesbury Borough Plan is now undergoing a review which has now been submitted for
examination by the Secretary of State for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
Government. This review has not included any allocations at Alderton despite it being
considered a service village in the settlement hierarchy.
5.10. The third reason for refusal is as follows; “The proposal, by virtue of its prominent open
location to the south of Alderton, would represent a significant encroachment into the
surrounding rural landscape. This encroachment would have a harmful impact upon the
character and appearance of the landscape within a Special Landscape Area, which serves to
protect the foreground setting of the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such, the
proposal conflicts with Policy SD6 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core
Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017), Policy LND1 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to
2011 (March 2006), Policy LC2 of Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018) and
the National Planning Policy Framework.
5.11. It is noted that the appeal site is located within a Special Landscape Area and that its purpose
is to protect the foreground setting of Cotswolds AONB.
5.12. We consider the appeal site is of little to no significance to the setting of the Cotswold AONB
for the following reasons:

1) The boundary to Cotswolds AONB to the south of appeal site is circa 1.5 km and
is separated by the B4077 and numerous field boundaries. The appeal site is
therefore not visible from the edge of the Cotswolds AONB to the south.
2) The Cotswold AONB boundary to the north and east of the appeal site on Didben
Lane is circa 500 metres to the north and 1km to the east. Again, from the edge
of Cotswolds AONB in both directions, facing towards the appeal site, there
appears to be no clear vantage points where the site is visual from.
5.13. Furthermore, the two most recent major planning applications approved in Alderton
13/00114/FUL (47 units) and 14/00414/FUL (24 units) were both in closer to the AONB than
the appeal site. 14/00414/FUL was approved at appeal however, the decision under delegated
powers was recommended for approval and did not contain any reasons for refusal concerning
landscape.
5.14. For information relating to the proposal cumulative impacts on the landscape please see the
support Landscape and Visual Assessment.
5.15. Conclusions noted in the Landscape and Visual Assessment state that the overall effect on
landscape receptors will not be adverse, rather negligible and with a number of beneficial
landscape effects accruing. The proposal introduces new landscape elements, strengthens
existing features and presents an effective transition landscape on the settlement edge and its
position and relationship with the surrounding landscape. The appeal development will be
seen as bringing forward the existing residential edge but with a softened green buffer and not
a harsh boundary. The site-specific character would be enhanced and while not fully
representative of published landscape character it does provide a contribution to the wider
landscape of the “Unwooded Vale” and “Teddington and Greet Vale”.
5.16. To add to this, point any other future development in the Parish of Alderton would be
significantly closer to the AONB to the north. There seems to be no definitive natural boundary
to the east and west, unlike the appeal site which is bounded by flood risk and the B4077 to
the south. Additional development to the north would encroach into the AONB. Additional

development in all other directions would encroach into, and have a greater cumulative impact
on, the AONB.
5.17. The fourth reason for refusal sets out that; “The proposed development fails to provide an
appropriate mix of dwelling sizes that reflect the local housing evidence base including the
most up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The proposed development would
therefore fail to contribute to mixed and balanced communities and a balanced housing
market contrary to Policy SD11 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core
Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework”.
5.18. Throughout the course of the application the housing mix was revised to ensure that the
greater housing mix was provided in accordance with the most recent SHMA. The most recent
information available from the SHMA is the ‘Update Note’ which was published in September
2015.
5.19. It should be noted that the Alderton Neighbourhood Plan was adopted in 2018 and therefore,
although it is now considered to be out of date, it is the most recent and therefore most
relevant document specifying housing mix for this site.
5.20. The Alderton Neighbourhood Plan states in Policy H4 that “Proposals for new housing in
Alderton should include small and medium sized houses (with 1 to 3 bedrooms) to provide a
greater mix of house sizes in the village and to support opportunities for downsizing or resizing.
To ensure that future housing development meets the needs of the existing and future
population the following will apply: 1. On sites of 5 or more dwellings a range of tenures, house
types and sizes of dwellings will be required, including a proportion of affordable homes to
meet the housing needs of households with a connection to Alderton Parish.”
5.21. In the paragraph preceding this policy, paragraph 4.1.31 of the Alderton NP, it states
“Accordingly, any additional housing in Alderton village built during the Plan period, whether
required by the emerging Local Plan or coming available as infill or windfall sites, should reflect
the need to add balance to the existing housing stock by providing 2-3 bedroom, open market
housing for small households wishing to but into the Parish or existing residents wishing to
downsize. ”

5.22. The below tables show the percentage of both market and affordable housing required by the
SHMA compared to what is provided by this development. As the tenure split for the affordable
dwellings has not yet been agreed both rented and ownership has been combined.
5.23. Market housing

% required in SHMA % provided by development
Number of Bedrooms
1 11.3 0
2 26.9 23.5
3 42.7 58.8
4 19.2 17.6
5.24. Affordable housing
% required in SHMA % provided by development

Number of bedrooms
1 11.6 18.2
2 46.3 45.5
3 32.4 27.3
4 9.6 9.1
5.25. As can be seen in the above table the provision of suitably sized affordable units is very close
to what is required by the SHMA. With regards to market housing, there is a slight over
provision of 1-bedroom dwellings and a slight under provision of 3-bedroom dwellings.
5.26. The provision of 2- and 4-bedroom market houses mirrors the required provisions set out in
the latest SHMA. As stated above in paragraph 4.1.31. of the Alderton Neighbourhood
Development Plan there is a need to balance the existing housing stock by providing a higher
number of 2- to 3-bedroom homes. The provision of 3-bedroom homes is therefore higher to
balance out this need.
5.27. It is acknowledged in the affordable housing statement that 11 units will be provided, which
would provide a tenure mix of 75% rented and 25% homeownership. This would subsequently
breakdown to 8 rented units and 3 homeownership. A preferred tenure mix has been

requested by the Councils Strategic Housing Enabling Officer. This will be secured in the
statement common ground/ S.106 agreement.
5.28. It is also noted that to provide 40% affordable housing on site 11.2 units would be required.
This additional 0.2 units will be dealt with in the form of a commuted sum payment which
again will form part of the S106 agreement.
5.29. The fifth and sixth reasons for refusal both relate to the lack of an appropriate planning
obligation. They are as follows:
5.30. “5. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the application does 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
SD12 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031
(December 2017) and Policy H3 of Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018)”.
5.31. “6. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the application does not make
provision for the delivery of education, library provision and off-site outdoor play facilities and
therefore the proposed development is contrary to Policy RCN1 of the 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”.
5.32. A suitable planning obligation is now being sought by the appellant. This obligation will cover
the affordable housing provision and relevant funding for community facilities such as
education, library provision and off-site outdoor play facilities, as covered in the above reasons
for refusal.
5.33. The seventh reason for refusal is as follows; “The proposed development, by virtue of its
nature, scale and location, would fail to ensure that future residents could access sustainable
means of transport and avoid private car reliance to access employment, education, retail and
leisure facilities to car dependent destinations such as Tewkesbury, Cheltenham or Gloucester.
The proposed design also fails to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements within the

scheme and neighbouring areas of Alderton and fails to address the needs of people with
disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport. As such, the proposed
development conflicts with Policy INF1 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint
Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017), Policy RP1 of Alderton Neighbourhood
Development Plan (July 2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework”.
5.34. A transport statement was provided to accompany the planning application. This statement
concludes that;
1. The location offers a genuine choice of transport modes. The nearest bus stops
are at the second junction with Willow Bank Road and St Margarets Road. These
bus stops are circa 0.1 miles north of the appeal site and both provide direct
services to Cheltenham, Beckford, Elmbridge, Winchcombe, and Chipping
Campden.
2. There are a number of key facilities included retail leisure and education uses
located 1.6km from the site. These facilities are accessible via pedestrian, cycle
and public transport routes on the existing network.
3. The new access point that will be constructed will allow for two way vehicle
movements and will provide an adequate provision of parking on site. This access
has been considered safe and suitable for future users.
4. Finally, the transport statement concludes that the appeal developments impacts
on the road network cannot be considered severe.
5.35. The above points illustrate that the proposal accords with policies INF1 and RP1.
5.36. If it is believed that there is still a conflict with these policies we would like to note that, in
accordance with para 7.67 of the committee report, a “contribution of £3,000 per dwelling
should be sought towards sustainable transport measures if permission is granted”. The
applicant is willing to accept a condition to this affect if considered necessary.
5.37. It should also be considered that the future expansion to the north and east of Alderton is
severely restricted because Dibden Lane does not provide adequate visibility splays as was
demonstrated in application reference 19/00781/OUT at Land On The South Side Of Dibden
Lane.

5.38. In terms of highway safety, the appeal site offers viable alternative to these sites where access
cannot be achieved. Furthermore, if sites were to come forward to the north and east,
construction traffic would need to go through the centre of the village.

6. The Tilted Planning Balance
6.1. Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states planning applications
must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
6.2. The council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and therefore, as
paragraph 11 of the NPPF has been triggered, the council’s policies with regard to housing are
out of date. Consequently, the application must be determined in accordance with paragraph
11(d)(ii) of the NPPF, meaning that planning permission should be granted unless there are
any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when the proposal is assessed against the policies of NPPF as a whole.
Benefits
6.3. In accordance the three dimensions of sustainable development under paragraph 8 of the
NPPF we consider that the proposal provides the following benefits:
The Economic Objective

6.4. The economic objective will be fulfilled by the employment created during the construction
phase of the development, but also by spending on goods and leisure by the future occupiers
of the housing.
The Social Objective

6.5. The social objective will be fulfilled by the significant provision of market and affordable houses
provided in the right location.
6.6. The housing mix on site provide a number of smaller 2- and 3- bedroom homes which would
help to even out the current un-even mix of larger dwellings in Alderton. This would help to
create a more balanced community and allow current resident to downsize whilst staying in
the area.
6.7. Additionally, a S106 agreement is being prepared to accompany this appeal. This will ensure
that affordable housing and other financial contributions will be secured. This will be a

significant benefit both on site for future residents and off site to enhance the local
infrastructure and provide additional facilities.
6.8. Furthermore, CIL will be provided at £207.46 per sq m on the private market units. The scheme
will provide a total sum of £399,851.46. A percentage of this will be paid to the Parish to be
spent on facilities and services.
The Environmental Objective

6.9. The environmental objective is fulfilled by positive enhancements created through the
provision of new open space, additional tree planting around the site boundary.
6.10. The proposal will also bring forward the existing residential edge but with a softened green
buffer and not such a harsh boundary.
Harms
6.11. The development would impact a Special Landscape Area (policy LAN1) that serves to protect
the AONB.
6.12. Harm may arise from the cumulative growth in Alderton in such a relatively short period of
time, which may affect the social cohesion and social well-being of residents. Having said this,
the most recent development located to the north was built out over 5 years ago from the
date of this appeal.
Neutral
6.13. As demonstrated above the proposal will not cause any significant harm to the Cotswold AONB
as it is located a significant distance from it. At the closest points, to the north and east the site
cannot be seen from the AONB.
6.14. As set out in paragraph 7.67 of the Committee Report, although the Highways Officer has
raised an objection to the development this has been balanced against the fact the Alderton is
a service village and therefore, they have stated that this outweighs the objection. With regard
to access to forms of sustainable transport it has instead been suggested that a contribution

of £3,000 per dwelling should be provided to mitigated this. This will be covered in the S.106
agreement.
6.15. The 'tilted balance' has been applied and it is considered that the benefits discussed above
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm, when the development is assessed against
the Framework as a whole. The development is therefore considered to represent sustainable
development.

7. Conclusion
7.1. The proposed development provides housing in a service village suitable for growth, however
no allocations have been proposed in the emerging TBC plan. The proposed scheme offers a
viable solution to Aldertons’ future expansion, over other sites that are heavily constrained.
The provision of 28 additional dwellings will assist the delivery of TBCs current undersupply of
housing.
7.2. The “tilted balance”, that is demonstrated above, shows that the appeal should be allowed
because of the overall benefits the scheme would bring to the local community and
surrounding area, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)
(England) Order 2015
REFUSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
Application number: 19/00772/FUL Date application valid: 6th September 2019
Location: Land Parcel 0088, Willow Bank Road, Alderton, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire,
Proposal: Residential development up to 28 units, including means of access and landscaping.
In pursuance of their powers under the above mentioned Act, the Borough Council as Local Planning
Authority HEREBY REFUSES the development described hereunder in accordance with the submitted
application and the accompanying plan(s) as stated below.
Reason(s) attached to refusal
1. The proposed development conflicts with Policies SP2 and SP10 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and
Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and Policy H1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood
Development Plan (July 2018) 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.
2. The proposed addition of 28 dwellings at Alderton, in addition to the dwellings recently built at land at
Beckford Road and land east of Willow Bank Road, would result in cumulative development, which would be
of a scale disproportionate to the existing settlement. As such the proposed development would fail to
maintain or enhance the vitality of Alderton and would have a harmful impact on the social wellbeing of the
local community, risking the erosion of community cohesion. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy SP2
of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017), Policy H1
of Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The proposal, by virtue of its prominent open location to the south of Alderton, would represent a
significant encroachment into the surrounding rural landscape. This encroachment would have a harmful
impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape within a Special Landscape Area, which serves
to protect the foreground setting of the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such, the proposal
conflicts with Policy SD6 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031
(December 2017), Policy LND1 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (March 2006), Policy LC2 of
Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. The proposed development fails to provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes that reflect the local
housing evidence base including the most up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The proposed
development would therefore fail to contribute to mixed and balanced communities and a balanced housing
market contrary to Policy SD11 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-
2031 (December 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 1 of 3
5. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the application does 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 SD12 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury
Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and Policy H3 of Alderton Neighbourhood Development
Plan (July 2018).
6. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the application does not make provision for the
delivery of education, library provision and off-site outdoor play facilities and therefore the proposed
development is contrary to Policy RCN1 of the 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.
7. The proposed development, by virtue of its nature, scale and location, would fail to ensure that future
residents could access sustainable means of transport and avoid private car reliance to access employment,
education, retail and leisure facilities to car dependent destinations such as Tewkesbury, Cheltenham or
Gloucester. The proposed design also fails to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements within the
scheme and neighbouring areas of Alderton and fails to address the needs of people with disabilities and
reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport. As such, the proposed development conflicts with Policy
INF1 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017),
Policy RP1 of Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018) and the National Planning Policy
Framework.
Informative:
Statement of Positive and Proactive Engagement
In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant
in a positive and proactive manner in order to seek solutions to overcome the planning objections and the
conflict with Development Plan Policy by seeking to negotiate with the applicant to address identified issues
of concern and providing on the council's website details of consultation responses and representations
received. However, negotiations have failed to achieve sustainable development that would improve the
economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
Date of decision: 17.03.2020
Head of Development Services

duly authorised in that behalf
PLEASE SEE NOTES OVERLEAF
Page 2 of 3
NOTES
APPEALS TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DCLG)
If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Local Planning Authority to grant permission for the proposed development subject
to conditions then you can appeal to the Secretary of State, under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
If you want to appeal, then you must do so within six months of the date of this notice using a form which you can get from the
Planning Inspectorate, Customer Support Unit, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN or from the
appeals area on
www.gov.uk/topic/planning-development/planning-permission-appeals Some personal information will be displayed on this website
please contact the Planning Inspectorate on 0303 444 00 00 if you have any concerns
The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will not normally be prepared to use this power
unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.
The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that the Local Planning Authority could not have granted
planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to
the statutory requirements, to the provisions of the Development Order and to any directions given under a Development Order.
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL)
Tewkesbury Borough Council is a charging authority for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It is important that you ensure that
the requirements of the CIL Regulations are met (including notification requirements and those that need to be met prior to
commencement of development and/or following completion of development) to ensure that you avoid any unnecessary surcharges
and that any relevant relief, exemption or instalment policy is applied. Further information regarding CIL can be found on our website
at https://www.tewkesbury.gov.uk/planning or you can contact us at cil@tewkesbury.gov.uk.
PURCHASE NOTICES
If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions, whether by the Local Planning Authority or by the Secretary
of State and the owner of the claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot
be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, he
may serve on the Borough Council, a purchase notice requiring the Council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the
provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
PARTY WALL ACT & RIGHT TO ENTER
Your attention is drawn to the Party Wall Act 1996. Further information is available on Party Wall Act
This permission does not imply any rights of entry to any adjoining property nor does it imply that the development may extend into or
project over or under any adjoining boundary.
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Attention is drawn to the fact that any failure to adhere to the details of approved plans or to comply with conditions attached to
consents constitutes a contravention of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 in respect of which enforcement
action may be taken.
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
The Development Management team want to continually improve the service we provide by reviewing what we do and your feedback
about the service you have received is really important to us. We would appreciate if you could take part in our short online
questionnaire, it should take around 5 minutes to complete. Please click on the following link to access the questionnaire:
https://www.tewkesbury.gov.uk/forms/planning-application-service-questionnaire
OTHER INFORMATION
This permission relates to planning control only. Any other statutory consent necessary must be obtained from the appropriate
authority. Building Regulations consent for the development may be necessary and you should approach the Building Control section
on BuildingControl@cheltenham.gov.uk.
If the work authorised by this permission involves the alteration to an access or the crossing of the highway verge or kerb, you are
requested to consult the County Highways Divisional Manager before commencing such work. The address of the Gloucestershire
Highways, Imperial Gate Business Park, Corinium Avenue, Barnwood, Gloucester, GL4 3BW
If the work authorised by this permission requires the supply of utility or other public services, you are requested to contact the
appropriate statutory or other undertaker as soon as possible following the receipt of this decision. Failure to do so may result in a
delay in the provision of these services.
Page 3 of 3
TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Committee: Planning
Date: 02.03.2020
Site Location: Land Parcel 0088, Willow Bank Road, Alderton, Tewkesbury,
Gloucestershire,
Application No: 19/00772/FUL
Ward: Winchcombe
Parish: Alderton
Proposal: Residential development up to 28 units, including means of access

and landscaping.
Report by: Mr Adam White
Appendices:  Site location plan

 Topographical survey
 Proposed layout plan
 Proposed streetscenes
 Sample housetypes
 Pond sections
Recommendation: Refuse
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL
1.1 The application site comprises an agricultural field located on the southern edge of
Alderton village with an area of approximately 2.2ha (see location plan). The site
slopes gently down from the north east towards an ordinary watercourse that forms
the southern boundary of the site. A mature hedgerow forms the western boundary
with Willow Bank Road beyond. The site adjoins a recently constructed residential
development to the north, with open countryside to the south, east and west.
1.2 The site lies outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which starts
to the north of Beckford Road further to the north of the village, but within the
Special Landscape Area (SLA) as designated in the Tewkesbury Borough Local
Plan to 2011. The site sits outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary for
Alderton as defined in the adopted Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan.
1.3 There are no Public Rights of Way (PROW) crossing the site, however, footpath
AAL9 intersects the field immediately to the south of the site. The southern
boundary and land to the south west corner of the site lie within Flood Zones 2 and
3. The remainder of the site sits within Flood Zone 1.
1.4 The application is made in full for the erection of 28 dwellings. 11 (39.2%) of the
dwellings would be affordable. The proposal includes a mixture of 1, 2, 3 and 4
bedroom properties. The majority would be detached with a few instances of
semi-detached and terraced properties. The majority of the dwellings would also be
two storey with the exception of a handful of bungalows to the south east corner of
the site. All properties would have a private garden and parking spaces, with the
exception of a pair of maisonettes. The proposed density would be approximately
13 dwellings per hectare.
1.5 A new access is proposed to the north east corner of the site directly off Willow
Bank Road (see layout plan).
2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 There is no planning history that is directly applicable to the application site itself.
However, of relevance is the planning permission for 24 dwellings immediately to
the north of the site, which was allowed on appeal in 2015 (LPA Ref: 14/00414/FUL
– PINS Ref: APP/G1630/W/14/3001584). Permission was subsequently granted in
2016 to redesign a number of plots and provide an additional unit, affectively
increasing the development to 25 dwellings (Ref: 16/00403/FUL). That permission
was implemented with the development substantially completed in 2017.
2.2 Also of relevance are a number of other relatively recent appeal decisions in
Alderton. On the 22nd May 2014, an appeal was allowed for 47 dwellings on land to
the south of Beckford Road, Alderton (LPA Ref: 13/00114/FUL – PINS Ref:
APP/G1630/A/13/2209001). That permission was implemented with the
development substantially completed in 2015.
2.3 On the 17th March 2015, an appeal was dismissed for an outline application for up
to 60 dwellings (net increase of 59 dwelling) on land east of St Margaret’s Drive,
Alderton (LPA Ref: 13/00734/OUT – PINS Ref: APP/G1630/A/14/2222147).
2.4 On the 17th July 2015, an appeal was dismissed for an outline application for up to
53 dwellings on land to the west of Willow Bank Road, Alderton (LPA Ref:
14/00747/OUT – PINS Ref: APP/G1630/W/15/3003278).
3.0 RELEVANT POLICY
3.1 The following planning guidance and policies are relevant to the consideration of this
application:
National guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice
Guidance (NPPG)
Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (JCS) - Adopted

11 December 2017
Policies: SP1, SP2, SD3, SD4, SD6, SD8, SD9, SD10, SD11, SD12, SD14, INF1,
INF2, INF3, INF4, INF6, INF7
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 - March 2006 (TBLP)
Policies: TPT3, TPT5, TPT6, LND2, RCN1
Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 Pre-Submission Version (July 2019)

Policies RES2, RES3, RES5, RES12, RES13, DES1, HER4, LAN1, NAT1, NAT2,
NAT3, ENV2, RCN1, COM2, COM4, TRAC1, TRAC2, TRAC3, TRAC9
Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan
Policies H1, H3, H4, LC1, LC2, LE1, LE2, LR1, RP1, RP2
Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life)
The First Protocol, Article 1 (Protection of Property)
4.0 CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Alderton Parish Council – The objections to the proposal are summarised as
follows:
 If this development were to go ahead there would be an increase of 37% in the
number of houses in a few short years. That is an increase of 103 houses from
the starting point of 277 houses. The increase would be through the addition of
three suburban estates on the fringes of the village, two of which are already built.
This is completely disproportionate.
 The Alderton Neighbourhood Plan, developed in conjunction with Tewkesbury
Borough Council, does not provide for any development on this proposed site off
Dibden Lane which is outside the village boundary and is not infill, windfall or a
rural exception site. Nor is it within a future strategic development plan or
identified through a plan led process.
 Alderton already has a margin of 24 houses [47%] above the figure of 51 and all
those 75 houses are built. There is therefore no need for a further housing
development in Alderton under the JCS.
 The emerging Borough Plan does not identify any sites in Alderton with
development potential.
 The Parish Council believes that the building of 72 houses in two estates on the
fringes of the village has already damaged social cohesion. 28 more houses
would further worsen the position and the proposal does not attempt to address
this issue.
 The Parish Council considers that this proposed development would seriously
harm the character and beauty of the countryside.
 The landscape has obviously already been affected by the creation of CALA’s
first development. CALA have endeavoured to soften the impact by screening but
in the Parish Council’s view this is totally ineffective. A new line of stark housing
coming further down the incline will make strips of new housing ever more
prominent from all viewpoints to the south of the village.
 Building here will also radically move the line of settlement closer to the brook
and footpath beyond, both of which are currently characterised as being separate
from the village.
 The sense of separation between Alderton and the B4077 is characteristic and
vulnerable to insensitive development. The new estate would breach the housing
line, bringing the village boundary much closer to the B4077, weakening
substantially what has always been a historic separation.
 The Parish Council notes that there are access issues raised in the report from
Gloucestershire Highways, including the positioning of the 30mph speed limit.
 The village shop cum post office is a very small retail outlet. It is staffed by a
single shopkeeper and in the course of the last 12 months has been closed for 2
months because of family commitments.
 The Parish Council has serious reservations about the risk of flooding. Many of
the 90 plus objections focus on this point. There is under current climatic
conditions, not taking into account climate change, a risk of flooding in the
attenuation basin, at the bottom left corner beyond the proposed development,
and to the roads and buildings at the southern end of the site touching the flood
zones.
 The Ecological Statement does not pay sufficient attention to local wildlife
associated with the brook on what could be a key wildlife corridor.
 The Ecological Statement only considers the impact of the removal of a 10m
section of hedgerow and the Arboricultural Statement refers to the protection of
retained hedgerows. However the Access Design Plan suggests the loss of at
least 59m. This hedgerow is an important landscape and ecological feature,
particularly following the disappearance of hedgerow in the first phase.
 The Parish Council is concerned about the condition of the sewage pipe running
over ground on the other side of Willow Bank Road.
Toddington Parish Council – Object for the following reasons:

 The site is not within the Alderton NDP.
 The site is outside the village boundary.
 The development is situated on flood plain.
 It will close the historic gap between the village and the B4077 and have huge
safety implications for residents and road users.
Environmental Health Consultant – No objections.
County Archaeologist - No objections.
Gloucestershire County Council Highways - Objects on sustainable transport

grounds. Further comments are awaited in respect of highway safety.
Gloucestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority - No objections.
Conservation Officer – Confirms that there are no designated heritage assets

directly impacts by this proposal.
County Planning Section 106 Monitoring Officer – Contributions are sought in

respect of education and libraries.
County Highways - Footpaths - No objections.
Highways England – No objections.
Environment Agency Midlands Region West Area – The EA do not wish to

provide a bespoke response based on their consultation matrix.
Minerals & Waste Policy - No objections.
Housing Enabling And Policy Officer – No objections subject to the applicant

agreeing to the preferred affordable housing mix provided.
Natural England - Natural England have not reviewed the application but highlight
that one or more Impact Risk Zones have been triggered by the prosed development.
The impact on SSSI's and SAC's need to be considered.
Severn Trent Water – No objections subject to drainage conditions.

Sport England South West – Standing advice provided.
Tree Officer – No objections
Wales & West Utilities - Attention is drawn to the proximity of a gas pipe in the
vicinity.
Ecology Planning Consultants - Further detail required on Biodiversity Net Gain

and potential impacts on nearby SAC's.
CPRE – Object on the grounds that village has already taken more than its share of
new housing in numbers greater than its allotted intended amount. The application
also conflicts with the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan, the Tewkesbury
Local Plan and the JCS.
5.0 PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The application has been publicised through the posting of a site notice for a period
of 21 days. A press advertisement was also placed in the Gloucestershire Echo.
5.2 107 letters of objection have been received. Their comments are summarised as
follows:
 The proposal would affect the security of the adjacent properties in Fletcher
Close and has no regard for guidance that is incorporated in Secured by Design
guidance.
 The village has already grown by 75 houses over the last few years and the
balance will be completely wrong with more new properties.
 When the original Cala Homes development was being considered the appeals
officer noted that one reason why he was able to accept the development was
that it did not 'result in the built development projecting further into the open
countryside than the existing dwellings on the western side of Willow Bank Road'
The proposed development projects fully and as such encroaches on the open
countryside in a manner that would, by implication, have been rejected by the
appeals officer.
 Planning applications for other sites have been rejected under appeal and
substantial emphasis has been placed on the only housing requirement
acceptable is for infill properties within the boundaries of the village. As such if
Cala Homes had requested to build this development at the same time as the
Fletcher Close scheme it would have been rejected due to a higher increase to
the community than would have been deemed as acceptable.
 Any more new houses will begin to spoil the rural character of the village; one of
its major attractions.
 It is no good having a robust Neighbourhood Plan if it can be set aside by the first
Planning Application.
 Alderton has a well-developed neighbourhood plan which clearly establishes the
village boundaries. This development, as acknowledged by the developer, lies
outside the village boundary and as such should be rejected.
 Tewkesbury is now going ahead, with Government support, with the Garden
Town at Ashchurch, which will meet local housing commitments identified under
the JCS to 2031.
 Alderton has far exceeded requirements to add additional housing as a service
village with a 26% increase from 277 houses and a further 2 dwellings in 2018-19
 This development extends beyond the current building area on the west side of
Willow Bank Road and extends into the site of special landscape area at a
pinch-point between two boundaries of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
 The increased traffic movements that would be generated will jeopardise road
safety and tranquillity of the rural lanes around Alderton. On-street parking is
already a problem and additional traffic would add to this.
 The recent increase in housing has had no impact on the falling role of the village
school or the footfall in the village shop.
 This development would substantially alter the view from the B4077 of a
nucleated village settlement formed around a medieval church that is currently
enjoyed by those travelling east towards the Cotswolds AONB.
 The developer puts forward no exceptional circumstances why Alderton should
accept a level of development that is disproportionate to its size and function and
its accessibility to major towns for work.
 Who monitors the weight of vehicles on the 3.5T bridge limit?
 Flooding at Arch Bridge deep enough to impede normal vehicular access has
occurred four times in the 30 years we have lived in Alderton.
 I am concerned that with the extra houses built there will be increased vehicular
traffic throughout the village which will also be exacerbated at the junction of
Willow Bank Road and B4077.
 The area for proposed development has already suffered flooding/drainage
problems, and I am concerned that the development will be built on this flood
plain, not only causing problems for the houses to be built but also for residents in
the nearby area.
 Access Design Plan 23791_08_020_01 clearly indicates that hedgerow along
Willow Bank Road will need to be removed for the full extent of the visibility splay
from the proposed site access. This will lead to the loss of at least 59.0m of
hedgerow. The Ecological Appraisal identifies these hedgerows as important
linear features, and only considers the ecological impact of the removal of a 10m
section of hedgerow. Therefore, it is clear that the full ecological impacts of the
removal of the hedgerow has not been considered in the application. 13
 Softening the southern and eastern edges of the development with tree planting
is important to minimise the visual impact of the housing scheme.
 Alderton has already made a significant contribution to council targets for new
houses and any further expansion of this type will spoil our village.
 105 people attended the Community Consultation Event for this planning
application - 89% of whom were not in favour of the development, 82% strongly
disagreed that this development would provide much needed affordable housing
and 82% strongly disagreed with the design and layout of CALA's proposed
development. This is a clear indication of local opinion, surely?
 A large cul-de-sac development like this will create an estate separate from the
village. The presence of disconnected housing estates undermines the natural
community cohesion of a village as currently exists. A large influx of people will
increase the number of children/teenagers/young adults. Activities for people in
these age groups is very limited in a semi-rural community like Alderton and
typically they have to travel to large towns for most activities. A sudden rise in
numbers of people in these age groups will lead to an increase in the potential for
crime, vandalism and general anti-social behaviour and will make Alderton a less
safe and cohesive community that it has been previously.
 The shop in village does not benefit from extra housing as most of new residents
are commuters and shop elsewhere.
 The land covered by this proposed development has a very clear and real flood
risk. This land has flooded in previous serious flood events and while rare, the
increasing frequency and severity of future floods must be taken into account.
 Village services simply don’t support Alderton growing any more than it has in
recent years.
 98% of Alderton Parish residents endorsed the Alderton Neighbourhood Plan.
 We are in a climate crisis and in my opinion new homes need to be built on brown
sites in town centres, near good rail and bus routes and near places of
employment accessible to amenities and supermarkets.
 The village will be overdeveloped if this proposal goes ahead and it will look and
feel like a housing estate not a village - the prime reason we live here.
 The development will exacerbate the traffic congestion and increased safety risks
in and out of the village from the entrance to the development up to the village
junction at the garage.
 The potential increased run-off and top soil loss attributable to the new
development and the associated likelihood of silting up and clouding in the brook
would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the lower reaches of the brook.
 The proposal totally ignores the wishes of the majority of the village and cannot
be justified on a local demand/need basis.
 As a regular user of the popular bus service to Cheltenham (606), I was
staggered to hear of the forthcoming changes to the timetable which further
restricts the availability of public transport to/from the village.
 The village has already expanded significantly and disproportionately in the last
couple of years. It needs time to assimilate.
 It would extend the footprint of the village southwards in what is otherwise a
mainly east-west orientated village.
 Building luxury homes on green fields does not help those trying to get on the first
rung of the housing ladder.
 The increase of 36% in village size that this development would bring in a few
short years is not sustainable and could only be considered as ‘building blight’.
 The village shop/Post Office proprietor has confirmed to me that the two new
development already allowed have not lead to any further footfall or revenue, and
the village primary is currently advertising for pupils so any ‘advantages’ did not
fall that way either.
 Alderton’s current communication infrastructure services are inadequate to meet
the basic needs of the current residents. Broadband is too slow for people who
plan to work from home and mobile phone services are desperately poor and
unreliable.
 Let’s build a few houses in a lot of villages and not a lot of houses in a few
villages.
 Another separate development of commuters will not help community cohesion
and integration into village life.
 Crime has been reported more regularly in the village.
 Continuously building further housing dilutes the village environment and is not
conducive to the local amenities and community feel.
6.0 POLICY CONTEXT
6.1 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.
6.2 The Development Plan currently comprises the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) (2017),
saved policies of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (March 2006) (TBLP),
and a number of 'made' Neighbourhood Development Plans. Of particular relevance
to this application is the Alderton Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan
2011-2031, adopted as part of the development plan on the 24th July 2018.
6.3 The Pre-Submission version of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan (PSTBP) was
approved for publication and submission at the Council meeting held on 30 July
2019. On the basis of the stage of preparation the plan has reached, and the
consistency of its policies with the NPPF, the emerging policies of the plan can be
afforded limited to moderate weight, subject to the extent to which there are
unresolved objections to each individual policy (the less significant the unresolved
objections, the greater the weight that may be given).
6.4 Other material policy considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework
and is associated Planning Practice Guidance.
6.5 The relevant policies are set out in the appropriate sections of this report.
7.0 ANALYSIS
Principle of Development
7.1 Policy SD10 of the JCS states that within the JCS area new housing will be planned
in order to deliver the scale and distribution of housing development set out in
Policies SP1 and SP2. Housing development will be permitted at sites allocated for
housing through the development plan, including Strategic Allocations and
allocations in district and neighbourhood plans. On sites that are not allocated,
housing development and conversions to dwellings will be permitted on
previously-developed land in the existing built-up areas of Gloucester City, the
Principal Urban Area of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury town, rural service centres and
service villages except where otherwise restricted by policies within District plans.
Policy SD10 follows that housing development on other sites will only be permitted
where:
i. It is for affordable housing on a rural exception site in accordance with Policy SD12,
or;
ii. It is infilling within the existing built up areas of the City of Gloucester, the Principal
Urban Area of Cheltenham or Tewkesbury Borough's towns and villages except
where otherwise restricted by policies within District plans, or;
iii. It is brought forward through Community Right to Build Orders, or;
iv. There are other specific exceptions / circumstances defined in district or
neighbourhood plans.
7.2 At a local level, Policy H1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (ANDP)
states:
‘Within the settlement boundary of Alderton village, as shown on Map 4 Alderton

NDP Policies Map, small windfall development will be supported together with infill
housing development of 1 – 2 dwellings within existing built-up frontages when it is
consistent with the scale, proportion and density of existing houses and gardens in
the adjacent area.
Proposed development of residential gardens for new housing units should

demonstrate that:
1. Any loss of garden space of existing properties is proportionate and acceptable;
and
2. Any adverse impacts on residential amenity are minimised. Proposals for
accessible, single storey dwellings on infill sites and small windfall sites will be
encouraged to meet the needs of older persons or those with limited mobility.
Proposals for new housing brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order
will be supported subject to other policies in the Plan.
In the event that a future development plan identifies an additional need for further
housing development in Alderton (as a service village), beyond what is being
accommodated within the settlement boundary, then sites outside of the boundary
will be considered in line with the other policies of the plan.’
7.3 The application site is Greenfield land that lies outside of the defined settlement
boundary for Alderton as defined in the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan
and is not allocated for housing development. The site does not represent previously
developed land within the built up areas of a service village; is not a rural exception
scheme; and does not represent 'infilling'. It has not been brought forward for
development through a Community Right to Build Order and there are no policies in
the existing Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 which allow for the type of
development proposed here. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies SP2 and
SD10 of the JCS and Policy H1 of the ANDP.
Council's 5 Year Housing Land Supply
7.4 Whilst the proposal is contrary to Policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS and Policy H1 of
the ANDP, 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 that a 4.33
years supply of housing can be demonstrated. In this scenario, paragraph 11 of the
NPPF states that where policies which are most important for determining the
application are out of date, permission should be granted unless:
i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect assets of

particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the
development; or
ii. ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the
Framework taken as a whole.
7.5 The Framework clarifies that planning polices for housing will be judged out of date
where, inter alia, the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of
deliverable housing sites. Footnote 6 to paragraph 14 also clarifies which policies in
the Framework provide a clear reason for refusing development and includes policies
relating to heritage assets.
Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (ANDP)
7.6 Whilst the tilted balance is triggered in this instance, paragraph 14 of the Framework
states that in situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to
applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing
development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following apply:
a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan two years or less
before the date on which the decision is made;
b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified
housing requirement;
c) the local planning authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing
sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate
buffer as set out in paragraph 73); and
d) the local planning authority's housing delivery was at least 45% of that required
over the previous three years.
7.7 The ANDP was adopted as part of the development plan on the 24th July 2018.
However, it does not contain policies and allocations to meet its identified housing
requirement. There were specific reasons for this due to a number of developments
being granted permission at the time the ANDP was being prepared. This is
discussed further in this report. Nonetheless, the ANDP does not meet all of the
requirements and paragraph 14 of the Framework is not engaged.
Scale of Development and Social Impacts
7.8 The Framework recognises that sustainable development includes a social objective
and how healthy communities can be promoted. Indeed, the ANDP throughout
explicitly refers to social cohesion in the village. The ANDP states that it is important
that its policies seek to conserve the active, cohesive nature of the Parish community
into the future by enabling sustainable growth that does not compromise existing
social bonds or overwhelm the Parish’s rural infrastructure. Furthermore, one of the
objectives of the ANDP seeks to ensure that any development in Alderton Parish
makes a positive contribution to enriching the vitality, health, wellbeing and social
cohesion of its communities. The ANDP also points out that concerns over the
potential loss of the Parish’s rural character and the impact on social cohesion arising
from rapid change in Alderton village are evident in all consultations undertaken for
the Plan between 2013 and 2015.
7.9 It is clear from the Parish Council’s consultation response and the numerous
representations made by local residents that the social well-being of Alderton and
community cohesion remains a serious and ongoing concern. It is also clear from a
number of relatively recent appeal decisions that this has been an important and
determining factor in some cases.
7.10 A common theme amongst the objections is the rate of growth at Alderton and the
fact that it has grown by 26% in a short period of time due to the relatively recent
developments in the village. The addition of a further 28 homes proposed here would
increase that growth to 36%. If you further consider the proposed development at
Dibden Lane, Alderton for 41 dwellings, this has the potential to cumulatively
increase the size of the village by over 50%.
7.11 The JCS recognises that the retention of services within rural service centres is
intrinsically linked to the size and distribution of the resident population and it is
important that these services remain viable, although more development will be
accommodated at the rural service centres than at the service villages. In response
to this, Policy SP2 of the JCS sets out that rural service centres and service villages
will accommodate lower levels of development to 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 taking into account the environmental, economic and social impacts,
including existing levels of growth over the plan period (emphasis added).
7.12 The Council’s approach to the disaggregation of the residual housing requirement to
the rural service centres and service villages is explained in the housing background
paper (October 2019), which forms part of the evidence base for the emerging
Borough Plan to 2031. The paper stresses that the disaggregation process is only
the starting point for considering an appropriate level of development for each rural
settlement. It follows that in addition to the ‘top down’ approach of the disaggregation
process, there should also be a ‘bottom up’ element whereby the availability of
sustainable sites at each settlement will also be a factor in determining the most
appropriate distribution of development. For example, there may be situations where
a settlement is unable to achieve its disaggregated requirement due to a lack of
suitable, sustainable sites or due to constraints such as the Green Belt and AONB.
Conversely, there may also be situations where a settlement can exceed its
disaggregated requirement due to suitable, sustainable sites being available at the
settlement. This will however need to be balanced alongside the size, function and
accessibility of the settlement in order to achieve a sustainable pattern of
development and avoid issues associated with social cohesion.
7.13 The paper goes on to state that there will also be positive and negative social impacts
from new development. Positive effects include meeting people’s housing needs,
supporting village services and shops and improving physical and mental health
through creating a high quality built environment. Negative social impacts can
however result where the number of dwellings in a settlement is substantially
increased without proportionate increases in infrastructure, employment
opportunities and other local services. This risks eroding community cohesion.
7.14 As far as Alderton is concerned, the disaggregated indicative housing requirement

set out in the housing background paper is 53 dwellings. However, given that 75
dwellings have been provided in the village as a result of the developments at
Beckford Road and Willow Bank Road, the emerging Borough Plan to 2031 does not
allocate any further development at Alderton during the plan period. It is also for this
very reason that the ANDP does not contain any allocations. However, that is not to
say that no further development will be provided at Alderton. On the contrary, the
ANDP does and has allowed for further growth within the defined settlement
boundary, albeit in a more organic and managed way.
7.15 In terms of local services, facilities and infrastructure, there is no evidence to suggest
that Alderton cannot accommodate the additional 28 dwellings proposed here,
subject to securing appropriate contributions. However, as the Inspector noted in the
land east of St Margaret’s Drive appeal decision (APP/G1630/A/14/2222147),
community cohesion goes beyond this in a small rural settlement. In that appeal, the
Inspector also noted the significance of the capacity for the settlement and the
community to accept the impacts that a rate of change for the construction of 107
houses would have over a relatively short period of time in a settlement of only 265
dwellings (as was the case at the time of the appeal). The Inspector stated: ‘Alderton
has grown organically and slowly over a long period of time and its physical character
would change as a result of the major development that would arise from the
Beckford Road scheme and the appeal proposals which, together, would represent a
39% increase in the number of dwellings. Alderton would appear more suburbanised
and less of a rural settlement and it would be adversely affected as a consequence’.
7.16 Apart from the physical changes that would occur the Inspector recognised that a
sizable expansion to the village could take the community some time to adapt to and
there could be adverse consequences for the social and cultural wellbeing of existing
residents. The Inspector went on to state: ‘I recognise that, as in cases elsewhere,
there is a danger that potential adverse impacts of new housing on an existing
community is a consideration that needs to be weighed in the planning balance. This
goes beyond a community’s natural resistance to change. Indeed, the APC has
indicated that a number of residents would sell up and leave the village because
Alderton would no longer be a quiet rural village’. The Inspector went on to conclude
that the proposed development would have a disproportionate effect on the village in
terms of the cumulative impact development and also on the social wellbeing of the
community.
7.17 In considering a later dismissed appeal at land to the west of Willow Bank Road in
Alderton for up to 53 dwellings, the Inspector also gave significant weight to the
previous Inspector’s findings in respect of the social well-being of the community.
Similar to the St Margaret’s Drive appeal, the Inspector found no substantive
evidence the scheme could not be accommodated by the existing facilities in
Alderton. However, the Inspector again set out that in his view, social well-being and
community cohesion goes beyond such considerations, particularly in a relatively
modest rural village. The Inspector went on to state: ‘Alderton currently
accommodates between 268 and 277 dwellings, depending on which source is used.
The proposal and the recent Beckford Road scheme would result in 100 new
dwellings, an approximate increase of the community of 36-37%. For a relatively
modest rural village, I consider such an increase to be substantial’. Given that the
development proposed here would result in a cumulative increase, which would be
on a par with the previous dismissed appeals indicates that this proposal would also
have similar adverse impacts in terms of social cohesion and social well-being.
7.18 During the appeal, the appellant suggested that the phasing of the developments
would mitigate the impact on social cohesion by staggering the introduction of new
dwellings and the subsequent occupiers. Whilst this was accepted by the Inspector,
he noted that it would still result in a significant increase of 36-37% to Alderton in a
relatively short period of time. The applicant makes a similar case here and suggests
that it is anticipated that a start would be made on site in 2021. Properties would
therefore be available for sale in the latter part of 2021 at the earliest. This would
represent nearly 5 years since the first plot was sold on the adjacent Fletcher Close
site (and 3 years from the sale of the last plot), and 6 years from the first plot of the
Beckford Road site (and 5 years from the sale of the last plot). However, this still
represents a significant amount growth in a very short period of time, especially when
considered in the context of the historic growth rate of Alderton over many years. It is
also a considerable amount of growth in a single plan period.
7.19 A further negative impact on social cohesion could also result from the local
resentment arising from the perception that the recently adopted ANDP has been
ignored. This is evident from a number of objections, which raise this as a particular
concern. As set out in the NPPG: ‘Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct
power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the
development and growth of their local area. They are able to choose where they want
new homes, shops and offices to be built, have their say on what those new buildings
should look like and what infrastructure should be provided, and grant planning
permission for the new buildings they want to see go ahead. Neighbourhood
planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to plan for the types of
development to meet their community’s needs and where the ambition of the
neighbourhood is aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local
area’. It is clear that local residents wished to take advantage of these powers and a
considerable amount of time and effort was spent preparing the plan. That plan
successfully passed referendum with 98.12% voting in favour of it. From the many
objections received it is evident that many locals see this proposal as a significant
departure from the ANDP and understandably question whether their efforts were
worth it. This would naturally cause a great deal of local resentment if the scheme
was to go ahead.
7.20 Albeit in a slightly different context, this was also recognised by the Inspector in the
land east of Willow Bank Road appeal decision who made reference to a relatively
comparable appeal in Feniton, Devon. The Inspector stated: ‘The Inspector of the
Feniton decision also noted that the residents of Feniton, like other communities,
expect (quite rightly) that decisions about its capacity to accommodate more housing
should be taken through the Local Plan process and in this context a considerable
quantity of new housing being allowed on appeal in advance of this process is likely
to lead to hostility and resentment towards the occupiers of the new housing. Given
the concerns of the Parish Council, local residents and the specific circumstances of
the eJCS, I consider that this is equally relevant to this proposal’. Whilst it is currently
the case the weight that can be afforded to the housing policies contained in the
ANDP is reduced due to the Council’s housing land supply position, the perception
that local’s wishes were being ignored would further impact on social cohesion.
7.21 In summary, it is considered that the cumulative growth in Alderton in such a

relatively short period of time would have a negative impact on social wellbeing and
social cohesion within Alderton. This matter weighs heavily against the proposal in
the planning balance.
Landscape Impact
7.22 JCS Policy SD6 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 and proposals 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.
7.23 Saved Policy LND2 of the Local Plan requires special attention to be paid to the
protection and enhancement of the special landscape character of the Special
Landscape Area (SLA), which is of local significance. Previous appeal decisions
have confirmed that this part of the policy is in accordance with the NPPF, although
the subsequent part of the policy which provides that ‘proposals must demonstrate
that they do not adversely affect the quality of the natural and built environment’ is not
so, on the basis that there is no cost/benefit analysis element to that part of the
policy. The reasoned justification qualifies that whilst the quality of the landscape is
worthy of protection in its own right it also plays a role in providing the foreground
setting for the adjacent AONB. Similarly, Policy LC2 of the ANDP states that
proposals should demonstrate how they will integrate into the SLA and AONB by
submitting a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) to enable their impact on
the landscape to be assessed. It follows that special attention should be paid to
preserving significant views in or out of the settlement, or including mitigation
measures that ensure such views are maintained as fully as possible.
7.24 The site lies within the eastern edge of the central part of the National Character Area
106: Severn and Avon Vales and within the Gloucester Landscape Character Study
(2006) ‘Teddington and Greet Vale’ area, which is set out as an ‘Unwooded Vale’.
The key characteristics of this ‘Unwooded Vale’ landscape type include medium to
large scale hedged fields with a combination of both regular and irregular field
patterns, and a relatively sparsely settled landscape with rural villages and scattered
farms and dwellings. It notes that the escarpment and outliers create a sense of
enclosure within the Teddington and Greet Vale, and provide a backdrop to many
views across it. At a local level, the site is located within parcel Ald-01 as defined in
the Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study - Rural Service Centres and Service
Villages (November 2014). Parcel Ald-01 is defined as have having a ‘medium’
landscape sensitively and a ‘high’ visual sensitivity. The study comments further on
the characteristic sense of separation between Alderton and the B4077 and notes
that this feature of the local landscape is vulnerable to insensitive development.
7.25 The application is supported by a LVIA, which considers the impact of the proposed
development on the landscape. The LVIA states that there would be a negligible
impact on the published characteristics of the landscape with features on site
retained, enhanced and managed. It goes on to note that the Parcel ALD-01, as
defined in the Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study, has been assessed as having
a ‘medium’ landscape sensitivity and the application site, which occupies a part of
that parcel, is identified as being an important characteristic that relates to ‘openness
between the settlement edge and the small stream’. The LVIA accepts that the field
would be lost as a result of the development but suggests that the development
would be set back within a sizeable green space and that the separation between the
between the B4077 would be maintained through the undeveloped foreground field,
green spaces of the new scheme and the scale/siting/massing of new buildings in the
landscape. It concludes that proposals would not result in a notable change in the
settlement pattern.
7.26 In terms of the visual implications, the LVIA includes a number of key visual receptors
likely to experience a change in the view, which include motorists travelling along
Willow Bank Road, people using the PROW network and residents with private
views. When considering the visual effects, the LVIA recognises that the
replacement of a field with development will always trigger change. However, it is
argued that the introduction of 28 dwellings is not a large number and is considered
to be appropriate in terms of local scale. Furthermore, whilst local views would be
affected, it is suggested that the development is planned to be an attractive view,
particularly as the landscape matures. In conclusion, the LVIA finds that the overall
effect on landscape receptors will not be adverse, rather negligible and with a
number of benefits accruing.
7.27 Following consultation with the Council’s Landscape Consultant, it is observed that
the Fletcher Close development forms a conspicuous and somewhat harsh southern
edge to Alderton sitting as it does at the top of a distinct south-facing slope and
exposed to the B4077. The application site occupies the slope itself down to a small
brook and associated gappy tree line. It is pointed out that the site falls within an area
considered to have a high sensitivity to visual effects. This sensitivity was as a
consequence of its prominence from the A4077, the role it played in creating a
distinctive foreground setting to Alderton including enabling views to the historic
village core and church as well as the AONB beyond at Alderton Hill. To some extent,
the qualities that attracted the high visual sensitivity of Area Ald-01 in the 2014 Study
have been eroded by the new development at Fletcher Close. However, the
Landscape Consultant is of the view that the application site does still make a
positive contribution to the separation between Alderton and the B4077. The slope
down to the stream accentuates this.
7.28 The Landscape Consultant advises that recent developments at Beckford Road and
Willow Bank Road are conspicuous and have significantly increased the perceived
size of the village along the base of Alderton Hill. The proposed development would
be visible and would inevitably add to this incremental growth of the settlement
beyond the established and defined village envelope. However, it would appear
foreshortened and appear as a slight extension of the Fletcher Close scheme. On its
own this change is unlikely to be significant in the wide-open views across the vale.
However, it would contribute to the incremental and gradual prominence of Alderton
within this enclosed Vale landscape. Furthermore, the application site is conspicuous
in views from the B4077 and is particularly prominent travelling east to west where
there are sustained views from Frampton Cottages where the scheme would be seen
in profile. It is further advised that the visual influence of the proposed development
on the B4077 would be exacerbated by the elevated and sloping nature of the site
and the planting along the stream would be unlikely to fully mitigate the new
development at the top of the slope.
7.29 In conclusion, the Landscape Consultant advises that the proposals would contribute
to the incremental increase in the prominence of Alderton within the distinctive Vale
landscape within the setting of the AONB. However, the scale of development is
unlikely to have a significant adverse effect upon the Vale landscape as a whole. The
proposals also represent a further incremental expansion of Alderton south, beyond
the established and defined settlement boundary. This expansion is in contrast to the
traditional settlement pattern of a nucleated village at the base of Alderton Hill. It
represents an expansion out onto the Vale towards the B4077 into land that has
traditionally served to provide a distinctive foreground setting between the village and
the road. Alderton has traditionally been perceived from the B4077 as a nucleated
village set back from the road within a well-treed roofscape with the ancient church
tower beyond meadows. This proposal would further erode that character by
significantly reducing the remaining space between the road and the village and
would occupy a prominent sloping site.
7.30 In considering the landscape impact of the proposal, the Inspectors findings in
respect of the Land East of Willow Bank Road appeal are also important (Appeal Ref:
APP/G1630/W/14/3001584). Whilst that appeal was allowed, the Inspector stated
the following: ‘During the site visit, I observed the appeal site from the B4077 and the
PROW to the south and although the proposal would be clearly evident, it would be
viewed within the context of the existing residential development to the north and
west. It is also clear that that the proposal would not result in built development
projecting further into the open countryside than the existing developments on the
western side of Willow Bank Road opposite the appeal site or to the east of the site.
The proposal would in essence ‘square-off’ this part of the village. I consider that this
limits the level of change to the settlement pattern and the harm that would be
caused. The proposal would also leave open space between the settlement edge
and the small stream and therefore would not harm this important characteristic as
set out within the Toby Jones assessment.’ The development proposed here would
clearly breech the existing development on the western side of Willow Bank Road
and largely erode the open space between the settlement edge and the watercourse.
7.31 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal would have a harmful impact
on the landscape within a Special Landscape Area, contrary to Policy SD6 of the
JCS, Saved Policy LND2 of the Local Plan and Policy LC2 of the ANDP. This weighs
heavily against the proposals in the planning balance.
Design and Layout
7.32 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. 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. This is reflected in Policy
LC1 of the ANDP, which seeks to promote local distinctiveness in built form and sets
out a number of way this can be achieved.
7.33 The submitted plans detail a relatively informal layout that is based on two perimeter
blocks served off a single main access road, which in turn feeds a number of smaller
access roads and private drives. The layout would provide for an outward facing
development, with dwellings fronting onto Willow Bank Road as well as the
watercourse to the south and the open countryside to the east. This would provide for
active street scenes and good levels of natural surveillance. The submitted Design
and Access Statement suggests that the development would be a continuation of the
existing urban area and includes new development orientated along the western and
southern boundaries as a continuation of the existing urban edge along with suitable
setbacks to maintain a rural character. The layout provides lower density
development around the edges of the site in order to provide a softer development
edge. A variation in building separation distances across the streetscape also seeks
to create focal points and reinforce the street hierarchy. Substantial areas of
landscaping are proposed around the perimeter of the development, especially to the
southern edge adjacent to the watercourse and around the SuDS feature.
7.34 The majority of the proposed dwellings are detached properties with the exception of
a few examples of semi-detached and terraced units. The majority of properties
would also be 2 storey, save for a handful of single storey bungalows to the south
east corner of the site. In terms of their appearance, the submitted Design and
Access Statement suggests that they draw upon the characteristics of the local
residential vernacular, in particular that seen in the new residential development that
adjoins the site to the north (Fletcher Close). This includes similar characteristics
such as scale, form, proportion and detailing, use of local materials and boundary
treatments. The houses would be faced in either reconstituted stone or red brick, with
some examples of timber boarding. The dwellings include architectural details such
as pitched and flat door canopies, casement windows, gables roofs and windows,
brick dentil coursing, brick corbelling, exposed rafter feet and chimneys.
7.35 Notwithstanding the concerns raised in respect of landscape impact, the layout in
itself is considered to be generally acceptable given the constraints of the site. The
layout would provide for active frontages and good levels of natural surveillance. The
development would provide good levels of amenity space and landscaping, whilst
accommodating the necessary drainage infrastructure. In terms of the proposed
housetypes, the proposed materials reflect that of the surrounding area, in particular
the adjoining development to the north. Given the context of this surrounding area, it
is considered that the proposed dwellings would be acceptable. Subject to conditions
requiring the submission of materials and detailed design, the proposal is considered
acceptable in this regard.
Residential Amenity
7.36 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.
7.37 In terms of the impact on existing residents, the nearest properties are located
directly to the north of the site on Fletcher Close. These properties generally back
onto the application site with low boundary treatments to their rear gardens. The
proposed access road would be located close to the northern site boundary, which
would provide a good separation distance between the proposed properties and the
existing properties in Fletcher Close. Additional buffer planting is also proposed
along the northern boundary. Given the distances involved, it is considered that there
would be no undue impact on existing property in terms of light, outlook and privacy.
7.38 In terms of the proposed dwellings, the layout indicates that all properties would be
provided with adequate outdoor amenity space. Furthermore, the relationship
between the proposed dwellings is also considered to be acceptable with adequate
separation distances and no instances of undue overlooking. The proposal is
therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard.
Housing Mix
7.39 JCS Policy SD11 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 Strategic Housing
Market Assessment (SHMA). This is further reflected in Policy H4 of the ANDP,
which requires new housing in Alderton to include small and medium sized houses
(with 1 to 3 bedrooms).
7.40 As set out in the ANDP, the Parish has a considerably higher proportion of 3 or 4
bedroom properties than 1 or 2 bedroom properties. Many of these are also under
occupied. Furthermore, the ANDP notes that the demographic projections for older
people in the village is projected to grow quite notably, with the number of people
aged 85 or over expected in increased by over 100% by 2031. The provision of
smaller housing is therefore required to balance the existing housing stock in
Alderton and indeed the Borough as a whole.
7.41 The proposal as originally submitted featured the following mix:
Open Market housing

 4 x 2 bedroom bungalows
 7 x 3 bedroom houses
Affordable housing
 2 x 1 bedroom maisonettes
7.42 The most up to date SHMA for Gloucestershire is the September 2015 publication
(SHMA, Further Update, Affordable Housing). Insofar as open market housing is
concerned, based on 17 units, the SHMA sets out the following mix:
 11.3% 1 bedroom houses = 1.92 houses
 19.25% 4+ bedroom houses = 3.27 houses
7.43 Clearly it is not possible to provide a fraction of a house but the housing mix should
be broadly in accordance with the SHMA. The mix of open market housing originally
proposed did not accord with the SHMA in that it proposed a greater number of 4
bedroom properties and no 1 bedroom properties. The applicant has sought to
address this by replacing a 4 bedroom housetype with a 3 bedroom housetype,
which would increase the proportion of 3 bedroom open market housing to 59%. The
applicant has achieved this by simply amalgamating 2 smaller bedrooms into a larger
single bedroom by removing an internal partition wall. However, other than that
change, the housetype essentially remains the same as before in all other respects.
It is therefore considered that it will not be any more affordable as a result and
unlikely to be suitable for downsizing in the village. Moreover, there would not be any
controls to prevent the internal partition wall simply being reintroduced at a later date
since internal alterations would not represent development. In any event, this would
still not address the imbalance due to the lack of any 1 bedroom open market
houses. Whilst the proposal arguably complies with Policy H4 of the ANDP due to the
provision of 1 and 2 bedroom affordable homes, the proposal is contrary to Policy
SD11 of the JCS due to the proposed open market housing mix. The proposal would
therefore fail to contribute to mixed and balanced communities and a balanced
housing market. This weighs against the proposal in the planning balance.
Affordable Housing
7.44 JCS Policy SD12 sets out that on sites outside of strategic allocations, a minimum of
40% affordable housing will be sought. It follows that they should be provided on site
and should be seamlessly integrated and distributed throughout the development
scheme. Policy H3 of the ANDP supports new affordable housing in new
developments through the allocation set by the local planning authority.
7.45 The current proposal seeks to provide 11 affordable dwellings, which equates to
39.2%. A proposed mix has been provided by the applicant but the tenure split has
not been provided at this stage.
7.46 Following consultation with the Council's Strategic Housing Enabling Officer, the
following preferred mix has been requested:
 2 x 1 bedroom apartments/maisonettes - Affordable rent
 3 x 2 bedroom houses – Affordable rent
 2 x 2 bedroom houses – Shared ownership
 2 x 3 bedroom houses – Social rent
 1 x 3 bedroom house – Shared ownership
 1 x 4 bedroom house – Social rent
7.47 Notwithstanding the Strategic Housing Enabling Officer’s preferred mix, it is the case
that the provision of 11 affordable dwelling does not meet the minimum requirement
of 40% as required by Policy SD12. Based on 28 dwelling, 40% provision would
equate to 11.2 dwellings. In order to achieve a policy complaint scheme, it is
therefore considered appropriate in this instance to secure an off-site financial
contribution equivalent to 0.2 of an affordable dwelling in addition to the 11 dwellings
that would be secured on site. It is advised that the off-site contribution would amount
to £25,898.25.
7.48 The affordable housing currently proposed by the applicant meets the preferred mix
but the applicant has yet to confirm the tenure split so it is not possible to ascertain at
this stage whether the proposal is acceptable. In any event, the affordable housing
would need to be secured through a S106 Agreement, which hasn’t been advanced
at this stage. This therefore weighs against the proposal.
Biodiversity
7.49 JCS Policy SD9 seeks the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and
geological resources of the JCS area in order to establish and reinforce ecological
networks that are resilient to current and future pressures. Improved community
access will be encouraged so far as is compatible with the conservation of special
features and interest. In a similar vein, Policy LE1 of the ANDP requires development
proposals to assess the impact of new development or changes in land use on
internationally and nationally recognised biodiversity and geodiversity sites in the
Parish. It also requires development proposals to provide a full ecological survey to
accompany any planning applications that seek to change, remove or in any way
affect Priority Habitats such as brooks, ponds, hedgerows, old woodland or orchards.
7.50 The application is supported by an Ecological Appraisal that determines the habitats
and species present on the site and makes an assessment of their ecological value.
The appraisal highlights that the habitats within the site are dominated by species
poor semi-improved grassland with field perimeter hedgerows and a waterway with
semi-mature trees and scrub on the southern boundary. There are no statutory sites
of international or national nature conservation importance within the site while a total
of thirty-one statutory designated sites are present within 15km of the site boundary.
7.51 The appraisal states that the grassland on site is of limited biodiversity value and is to
be lost. This could be mitigated for through the provision of species-rich grassland
within the site. All hedgerows are proposed to be retained with the exception of a
section to be removed to facilitate the site access. No badger setts or activity were
identified on site though suitable habitat is present for this species. Five semi-mature
willow trees with low bat roosting potential along the brook are proposed to be
retained and buffered. It is also proposed to retain and enhance exiting potential bat
foraging and commuting corridors around the site.
7.52 The site provides potentially suitable habitat for common species of reptiles and the
appraisal advises that site clearance should be undertaken under ecological
supervision in a directional manner during the reptile active season. No evidence of
water vole or otter was identified within the site although it is considered that the
brook could provide a potential corridor of movement for these species. Suitable
nesting habitat is also present on site for birds and any removal of suitable nesting
habitat should occur outside of the bird breeding season to minimise the risk of
disturbance to breeding birds.
7.53 Following consultation with the Council’s Ecology Consultant, it is recommended that
the mitigation and enhancements described in the appraisal should be followed and
written up in the form of a Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEMP). This
could be secured by way of a planning condition. It was further advised that whilst the
appraisal does screen out various potential effects on local European sites (Dixton
Wood and Bredon Hill SACs), further analysis of indirect recreational impacts was
required. Further information has subsequently been provided on this matter by the
applicant, which has been forwarded to the Ecology Consultant for consideration. An
update will therefore be provided at Committee.
Arboricultural Implications
7.54 Policy LE2 of the ANDP states that new development of all kinds should seek to
minimise environmental harm and encourages tree and hedgerow planting to replace
any such features lost through development.
7.55 The application is supported by an Arboricultural Statement and Tree Condition

Survey, which notes that the only tree growing on the site is a crack willow on the
northern bank of the watercourse. The remaining trees are all growing within or to the
southern side of the watercourse. A hawthorn hedge is also identified on the western
boundary adjacent to the road. The report states that boundary vegetation will be
retained and enhanced by additional planting. However, this is at odds with the Road
Safety Audit Designers Response Schedule, which indicates that the hedgerow
along Willow Bank Road would be removed to accommodate the visibility splays.
7.56 Following consultation with the Council’s Tree Officer, it is advised that the one willow
tree on the site could be managed by pollarding. A condition is also recommended to
ensure that the trees and hedgerows are retained and protected in permission was
granted. However, this does not take into account the requirement to remove the
hedgerow along Willow Bank Road and further clarification has been sought from the
applicant on this matter. An update will therefore be provided at Committee.
Drainage and Flood Risk
7.57 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. It also requires new development to incorporate
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) where appropriate to manage surface
water drainage. This is reflected in emerging PSTBP policy ENV2. Similarly, Policy
LE2 of the ANDP sets out that new development should seek to minimise
environmental harm through the use of sustainable drainage systems to manage
drainage of surface water and reduce flood risk.
7.58 To the south of the site is watercourse, which is a tributary of the Carrant Brook, and
classed as an ordinary watercourse. Due to the proximity of the watercourse, the
southern sections of the application site lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3 as defined on
the Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning. However, additional modelling of
the watercourse undertaken by the applicants show a reduction in flood extents when
compared to the EA mapping. Historic flooding has also been recorded at the Arch
Bridge along Willow Bank Road in close proximity to the application site. In light of
the flood risk associated with the site, the application is supported by a Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA).
7.59 The FRA sets out that the site is only impacted by flood waters in the south-western
corner of the site and along the southern boundary. These areas have been
designated in the proposed site layout as landscaped areas and drainage features.
All of the proposed access roads and the residential units are shown to be located
within Flood Zone 1. In this regard, only water compatible uses would be located in
Flood Zones 2 and 3 and the sequential test is passed. The FRA also considers a
blockage scenario of the Willow Bank Road Bridge. This shows that the flood levels
and extents within the application site increase slightly but stay within the landscaped
area along the southern boundary. This flooding would not impede the proposed site
access. The FRA notes surface water flooding along Willow Bank Road but flows
appear to be contained to the carriageway and are draining south into the
watercourse.
7.60 In terms of drainage, it is proposed to drain the surface water runoff via a traditional
piped network running under roads within the site. This would then be conveyed to a
detention basin to the south west of the site. A hydro-brake or similar flow control
would then control the runoff from the basin before it discharges into the
watercourse. The foul drainage would comprise a foul network within the roads
serving the development. The flows would be taken via gravity to a pumping station
located on the southern boundary of the site before being conveyed northwards to
the existing Severn Trent Water sewer network near Fletcher Close.
7.61 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have reviewed submitted information and are
satisfied that there would be no buildings within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and no portion
of the attenuation basin would be within Flood Zone 3. The revised information that
has been submitted by the applicant details a reduction in the surface water
discharge rate and an additional underground storage tank is proposed beneath the
open space to the south of the entrance. The plans also now show that the side
slopes of the detention basin would be 1 in 4. Details have also been provided to
show how the drainage network would work when the watercourse in in flood. This
shows that there would be some flooding from the network but this would be
downstream of any buildings and would be contained within the freeboard of the
detention basin.
7.62 In light of the additional and revised information submitted, the LLFA are of the view
that the submitted details are acceptable subject to a planning condition to secure a
SuDS management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. This is
neutral factor in the planning balance.
Access and Highway Safety
7.63 The Framework 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. JCS Policy INF1 requires that developers should provide
safe and accessible connections to the transport network to enable travel choice for
residents and commuters. Policy RP1 of the ANDP requires new development to be
designed to include access to existing walking, cycling and passenger transport
networks and encourage maximum potential use. Policy RP2 follows and requires
on-site parking at a minimum rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling or make available in the
vicinity some suitable provision for off-road parking for households and visitors with
vans as well as private cars.
7.64 The application is supported by a Transport Statement (TS), which sets out that
Willow Bank Road is a two-way single carriageway road measuring approximately
5.0-5.5m in width. Willow Bank Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit upon entry to
the built-up area of Alderton. When heading southwards the B4077, the road is
subject to the national speed limit of 60mph. The TS notes that there is a shortfall in
the pedestrian footway along the eastern side of Willow Bank Road and that on-road
cycling is suitable along roads which form part of the surrounding highway network
due to their low traffic nature. There are 2 bus stops within close proximity of the site,
which serve a number of bus services providing access to Chipping Camden,
Cheltenham, Mickleton, Tewkesbury and Gretton. However, some of these services
only operate once a week.
7.65 In terms of the access, the site is proposed to be accessed directly off Willow Bank
Road with a footway provided on both sides. This footway would be extended north
for approximately 50m in order to connect to the existing footpath at Fletcher Close. It
is proposed to reposition the 30mph entry into Alderton in a location to be agreed with
the County Council. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 63m are achievable to the north and
visibility splays of 2.4m x 53m are achievable to the south. In terms of the impact on
the highway network, the TS states that the development would generate 16 trips
(arrivals and departures) in the AM peak hour (8am-9am) and 19 trips in the PM peak
hour (5pm-6pm).
7.66 Following consultation with the Highways Officer, it is highlighted that there are no
pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site and the network of footways available
through Alderton are denoted by deficiencies in infrastructure such as width and lack
of pedestrian crossings across the main roads and minor arms. Furthermore, whilst
the 30mph speed limit may encourage cycling within its borders and to other villages,
there are no cycle routes on the roads through and around Alderton. Consequently,
the Highways Officer is of the opinion that cycling cannot be, at this point in time,
promoted nor encouraged as a safe and suitable means of access due to car
dependent destinations such as Tewkesbury, Cheltenham or Gloucester.
Furthermore, due to the limited coverage of the bus services, it would be unlikely to
provide an attractive alternative to the private motor vehicle for accessing key
employment areas. In light of this, whilst there are some facilities within walking
distance of the proposed development, the Highways Officer considers that the level
of offer to be insufficient to address the needs of existing and local residents.
7.67 In light of the above, the Highways Officer objects to the proposed development,
which weighs against the proposal. However, this has to be balanced against the fact
that Alderton is designated as a Service Village in the development plan. In
recognition of this, the Highways Officer states that should the Council be of the view
that the Service Village status outweighs the objection in respect of access to
sustainable transport, mitigation measures should be sought. To that end, the
Highways Officer states that a contribution of £3,000 per dwelling should be sought
towards sustainable transport measures if permission is granted. Further information
has been sought from the Highways Officer in order to assess whether the
contributions sought meet the relevant tests set out in the CIL Regulations. Further
clarification has also been sought as to the suitability of the proposed vehicular
access off Willow Bank Road and the proposed internal road layout. An update will
therefore be provided at Committee.
Heritage Assets
7.68 Paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that in determining applications, local planning
authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage
assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail
should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to
understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. Where a site on
which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage
assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require
developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary,
a field evaluation.
7.69 In terms of archaeology, the application is supported by an Archaeological

Desk-Based Assessment. Following consultation with the County Archaeologist, it is
advised that the proposal has low potential to have any adverse impact on
archaeological remains and no further work is required in this regard.
7.70 In respect of other heritage assets, there are no listed buildings within the immediate
vicinity of the site, whose setting would be affected by the proposed development.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this context.
Open Space and Play Facilities
7.71 The Framework sets out that the planning system can play an important role in
facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Access to
high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an
important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. JCS Policy INF4
provides that where new residential development will create or add to, a need for
community facilities, it will be fully met as on-site provision and/or as a contribution to
facilities or services off-site. JCS Policies INF6 and INF7 support this requirement.
Saved Local Plan Policy RCN1 requires the provision of easily accessible outdoor
playing space at a standard of 2.43ha per 1000 population on sites of 10 dwellings or
more.
7.72 The layout provides for a good level of publicly accessible open space to the edges of
the site, particularly to the southern edge. However, it should be noted that a large
portion of this land lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and also incorporates the
drainage infrastructure for the development. Nonetheless, the area would be
landscaped and available for informal recreational purposes for most of the year. The
layout also incorporates a small Local Area for Play (LAP) at the centre of the site,
which would cater for very young children. The proposal does not provide for any
sports pitches on site due to its size, however, there are playing pitches in relatively
close proximity to the site at Beckford Road, which is within an acceptable walking
distance.
7.73 In accordance with Fields in Trust guidance, the quantum of development proposed
would also generate the requirement for a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) to be
provided on site. If on-site provision cannot be provided, an off-site contribution
would normally be expected. Given the constraints of the site, it is not practical to
provide a LEAP on site and therefore an off-site contribution would be appropriate in
this instance. Following consultation with the Community and Place Development
Officer, it is advised that the required contribution would be £23,072 which would be
used to upgrade and/or maintain the existing play facilities located off Beckford
Road. In light of the policy requirement for open space, this would meet regulation
122 of the CIL Regulations.
7.74 Subject to securing the off-site contribution, it is considered that the proposal would
be acceptable in terms of open space and outdoor play facilities. However, at this
stage the applicant has yet to agree to the off-site contribution and in any event there
is no signed Section 106 Agreement in place to secure the contribution. On that basis
the proposed development does not adequately provide for public open space and
the proposed development therefore conflicts with Policies INF4, INF6 and INF7 of
the JCS and the NPPF.
Community Infrastructure Levy/Section 106 obligations
7.75 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations allow local authorities to raise
funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area. 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.
7.76 As a result of these Regulations, local authorities and applicants need to ensure that
planning obligations are genuinely 'necessary' and 'directly related to the
development.' As such, the Regulations restrict local authorities' ability to use
Section 106 Agreements to fund generic infrastructure projects, unless the above
tests are met. Where planning obligations do not meet the above tests and
restrictions, it is 'unlawful' for those obligations to be taken into account when
determining an application.
7.77 In October 2018 the Council adopted CIL and implemented the levy on the 1st
January 2019. For CIL purposes the application site falls within a 'Generic Site' and is
subject to the levy for residential development currently at £207.46 per square metre
on all the market elements of the proposed development.
7.78 Infrastructure requirements specifically related to the impact of the development will
continue to be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement. Requests have been
made by consultees to secure the following contributions:
 Affordable housing = 11 plus off-site contribution of £25,898.25
 Contribution towards off-site playing facilities = £23,072
 Pre-school Education = £97,186.04
 Secondary Education = £103,636.80
 Libraries = £5,488
 Recycling = £73 per dwelling
7.79 In respect of education, these figures have been generated using the GCC Guidance
'Child Yields in New Developments' where it is stated that planning contributions will
be required in all cases where there is no identified surplus in the forecast for school
places. Nevertheless, at this stage there is no specific evidence to indicate that the
contributions sought meet the Regulation 122 tests and therefore the absence of a
completed s106 obligation does not weigh against the proposal.
7.80 In respect of library provision, officers similarly consider there is currently insufficient
justification from GCC to substantiate their request for £12,740.00 and further
clarification has been sought on how this is directly related to the proposed
development.
7.81 As set out above, the requirement of an on-site play facility or an off-site contribution
in lieu of this is a simple policy requirement having regard to policy RCN1 of the TBLP
and an obligation would therefore meet the regulation 122 tests as would the
recycling contribution.
7.82 At this stage, the applicant has not confirmed their acceptance of the requested
contributions and, in any event, there is no S106 Agreement signed to secure the
contributions. This weighs against the proposal in the planning balance.
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
8.1 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.
8.2 The application site lies outside of the defined settlement boundary for Alderton and
is not allocated for housing development. The site does not represent previously
developed land within the built up areas of a service village; is not a rural exception
scheme; and does not represent 'infilling'. It has not been brought forward for
development through a Community Right to Build Order and there are no policies in
the existing Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 which allow for the type of
development proposed here. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies SP2 and
SD10 of the JCS and Policy H1 of the ANDP. However, the Council cannot currently
demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the
Council's policies for the supply of housing are out of date. In accordance with
paragraph 11 of the Framework, there are no policies in the Framework that protect
assets of particular importance which provide a clear reason for refusing the
development. On that basis the application must be determined in accordance with
paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF, i.e. planning permission should be granted unless
any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of NPPF as a whole.
Benefits
8.3 The delivery of market and affordable housing would provide a significant social
benefit. Furthermore, there would be economic benefits both during and post
construction through the creation of new jobs and the support to existing local
services and the local economy. Overall, given the scale of development, these
benefits would attract significant weight in favour of granting permission in light of the
Council's housing land supply position.
Harms
8.4 Harm arises from the conflict with development plan policies relating to housing,
particularly JCS Policy SD10 and Policy H1 of the ANDP, although it is accepted that
the Council's housing policies are currently out of date. Harm would also arise from
the cumulative growth in Alderton in such a relatively short period of time, which
would have a negative impact on social cohesion and social well-being. There would
be a harmful impact on the landscape within a Special Landscape Area and the
development would not provide an appropriate mix of housing.
8.5 At this stage there is also no agreement as to the precise offer in respect of
affordable housing and no signed S106 Agreement to secure it; nor is there a signed
Agreement to provide for financial contributions required towards recycling and
off-site recreational facilities. Furthermore, it is not known as to whether there would
be an acceptable impact on local European sites as a result of indirect recreational
pressures.
Neutral
8.6 In design terms, notwithstanding the concerns raised in respect of landscape impact,
the layout in itself is considered to be generally acceptable given the constraints of
the site. The proposal also does not raise any residential amenity issues in terms of a
loss of light, outlook and privacy. The development would not be at an acceptable
risk of flooding and appropriate drainage infrastructure can be provided. The
proposal would not have an adverse impact on designated heritage assets and
would has low potential to have any adverse impact on archaeological remains.
Conclusion
8.7 Whilst the 'tilted balance' is applied, it is considered that the adverse impacts listed
above significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against
the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such, the proposal is not
considered to represent sustainable development and there are no material
considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in
accordance with the development plan. It is therefore recommended that the
application is REFUSED.
Reasons:
1. The proposed development conflicts with Policies SP2 and SP10 of the Gloucester,
Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and
Policy H1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018) 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.
2. The proposed addition of 28 dwellings at Alderton, in addition to the dwellings recently

built at land at Beckford Road and land east of Willow Bank Road, would result in
cumulative development, which would be of a scale disproportionate to the existing
settlement. As such the proposed development would fail to maintain or enhance the
vitality of Alderton and would have a harmful impact on the social wellbeing of the local
community, risking the erosion of community cohesion. As such, the proposal conflicts
with Policy SP2 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy
2011-2031 (December 2017), Policy H1 of Alderton Neighbourhood Development
Plan (July 2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The proposal, by virtue of its prominent open location to the south of Alderton, would
represent a significant encroachment into the surrounding rural landscape. This
encroachment would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of
the landscape within a Special Landscape Area, which serves to protect the
foreground setting of the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such, the
proposal conflicts with Policy SD6 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury
Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017), Policy LND1 of the Tewkesbury
Borough Local Plan to 2011 (March 2006), Policy LC2 of Alderton Neighbourhood
Development Plan (July 2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. The proposed development fails to provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes that
reflect the local housing evidence base including the most up to date Strategic
Housing Market Assessment. The proposed development would therefore fail to
contribute to mixed and balanced communities and a balanced housing market
contrary to Policy SD11 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core
Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
5. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the application does 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 SD12 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core
Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and Policy H3 of Alderton Neighbourhood
Development Plan (July 2018).
6. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the application does not make
provision for the delivery of education, library provision and off-site outdoor play
facilities and therefore the proposed development is contrary to Policy RCN1 of the
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.
7. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed

development would not have an adverse impact on protected European sites. The
proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy SD9 of the Gloucester,
Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (December 2017) and
advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Informatives:
1. Statement of Positive and Proactive Engagement
In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, the Local Planning Authority has worked
with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in order to seek solutions to overcome
the planning objections and the conflict with Development Plan Policy by seeking to negotiate
with the applicant to address identified issues of concern and providing on the council's
website details of consultation responses and representations received. However,
negotiations have failed to achieve sustainable development that would improve the
economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
Our ref: APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
Rob Riding
Principal Planner
Pegasus Group
Rob.riding@pegasusgroup.co.uk
22 January 2020
Dear Sir
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78

APPEAL MADE BY ROBERT HITCHINS LTD
LAND AT FIDDINGTON, ASHCHURCH NEAR TEWKESBURY
APPLICATION REF: 17/00520/OUT
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of Philip J G Ware BSc DipTP MRTPI who held a public local inquiry on 11 June
2019 into your client’s appeal against the non-determination by Tewkesbury Borough
Council of your application for planning permission for a residential development (up to
850 dwellings), a primary school, local centre (comprising up to 2,000 m² gross internal
floor area) (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1 uses) with no single A1 comparison unit
exceeding 500 m² gross internal floor area, supporting infrastructure, utilities, ancillary
facilities, open space, landscaping, play areas, recreational facilities (including changing
facilities and parking), demolition of existing buildings, new access to the A46(T) and
Fiddington Lane in accordance with application ref: 17/00520/OUT dated 12 May 2017.
2. On 17 September 2018, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's
determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission be
granted.
4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to allow the appeal
and grant permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to
paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 3594
Andrew Lynch, Decision Officer Email: PCC@communities.gov.uk
Planning Casework Unit
3rd Floor Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Procedural matters
5. The Secretary of State has received post inquiry correspondence from two members of
the public regarding concerns about flood risk and attenuation ponds. However, the
Secretary of State does not consider that this correspondence raises any matters that
would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching
his decision on this appeal, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been
prejudiced.
Policy and statutory considerations
6. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
7. In this case the development plan consists of saved policies from the Tewkesbury
Borough Local Plan to 2011 (adopted 2006) (BLP), and the Gloucester, Cheltenham and
Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (2017) (JCS). The most important policies in relation to
the appeal are identified and set out in section 7 of the Planning Statement of Common
Ground, copies of which can be made available on request to the address given at the
foot of page 1 of this letter.
8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning
guidance (‘the Guidance’). The revised National Planning Policy Framework was
published on 24 July 2018 and further revised in February 2019. Unless otherwise
specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the 2019 Framework. The
Secretary of State has also taken account of Supplementary Planning Guidance
documents prepared by the Council, the most directly relevant of which is that dealing
with Affordable Housing.
9. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the
desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or
their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may
possess.
10. In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation
areas.
2
Emerging plan
11. Work has begun on an emerging Tewkesbury Local Plan. Since the close of the Inquiry
into this appeal, a pre-submission version of the plan was consulted on between October
and November 2019, but it is yet to undergo Examination. The Secretary of State notes
that the area was designated as a Neighbourhood Plan area in 2013, and that there was
a Regulation 14 draft consultation in 2018. All parties agree that this should not be
afforded any weight at this stage, and there is no ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan covering
the site.
12. When adopted, the intention was that the JCS was to be the subject of an immediate
review, and a consultation on an Issues and Options paper ran to January 2019. There
is currently no further timetable for the review.
13. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant
policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan;
(2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the
emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the
Framework. Given its relatively early stage of development, the Secretary of State
concludes that the emerging Tewkesbury Local Plan attracts only limited weight at
present, and the JCS review attracts no weight.
Main issues
The plan led approach
14. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspectors assessment of the
proposal’s impact on the plan led approach at IR48-58 and he notes that the site is not
identified for any purpose in either part of the development plan (the BLP or JCS) and is
classified as countryside in policy terms. He further notes the Inspector’s consideration at
IR48 that given the size of the site and the scale of the development proposed, it would
normally be appropriate for the site to be identified as a strategic site in the JCS. He also
notes that the Council agree that the there will be a need to review boundaries within the
emerging Local Plan due to the housing requirement (IR48).
15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s view at IR49 that the proposal would
be classed as a strategic site, but was not included in the final adopted version of the
JCS due to highways issues which have now been resolved. He agrees with the
Inspector’s conclusion that the proposal is in conflict with policies SP2(8), REV 1 and
SD10 of the JCS (IR50).
16. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector’s consideration at IR52-53 that
there is a serious housing shortfall, as agreed between the parties, and he considers that,
given the substantial shortfall in housing land supply, the tilted balance outlined in
paragraph 11 of the Framework applies.
17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s view that appeal site only failed to be
in the JCS as a strategic site due to the now resolved highways issues and that the site is
available and is deliverable at least in part during the next five year period (IR57). Given
the lack of progress on the JCS review and the limited weight to be attached to the
emerging Local Plan, and the lack of any objection from the Council, the Secretary of
State agrees with the Inspector that it cannot be concluded that the development would
undermine the plan making process (IR55), and that the appeal would not prejudice the
3
plan led approach to the delivery of housing, but would in fact make a major contribution
towards addressing the deficit (IR58).
Landscape Character
18. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s analysis at IR59-66, regarding the
impact on landscape character. He agrees with the Inspector at IR63 that it is inevitable
that any greenfield development intended to address the pressing need for housing will
result in landscape impacts, and he notes that the site is not subject to any local or
national landscape designations and that parties agree that the sensitivity of the area is
medium/low (IR63). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR64 that given
the proposed intrusion into the rural landscape, it is relevant to consider opportunities for
minimising the impact. Having had regard to IR65, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector that the revised landscape mitigation plan suggests a form of development
compatible with its setting. He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR66 that the
proposal complies with JCS policies SD4 and SD6. The Secretary of State considers that
the harm that will be caused by the loss of an area of countryside should carry only
limited weight against the proposal.
Highways impact
19. The Secretary of State has taken into account the Inspector’s analysis of the potential
impacts of the proposal on the highways network (IR67-71). He notes that the site was
not designated as a strategic site in the JCS due to concerns regarding the potential
impacts on the highways network. He further notes the Inspector’s view at IR69 that
agreement has been reached on all matters relating to highways and agrees that the
proposal would not conflict with JCS policy INF4. The Secretary of State notes that the
County Council does not consider that additional funding for traffic calming measures on
minor roads and lanes is necessary. However, he agrees with the Inspector at IR71 that
there is sufficient evidence, albeit anecdotal, to indicate that the Mitigation Works Fund is
necessary, and he agrees with the Inspector that the funding should be made available
and considers that this issue is neutral in the planning balance. In reaching this view,
the Secretary of state has taken account of the drafting of the Highways Mitigation
Obligation, which requires that justification for any proposed mitigation works be
provided before any sums can be drawn down.
Affordable housing
20. The Secretary of State notes at IR72 that the only matter between the appellant and the
Council is the amount of affordable housing which the scheme should deliver. While the
Council seek 40% affordable housing, the appellant proposes 35%. He also notes that
the JCS states that 35% affordable housing will be sought if the site is a Strategic
Allocation, and 40% elsewhere. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s view
that the only reason the site is not a Strategic Allocation is the concerns regarding the
effect of the proposal on the strategic and local highway network (IR67), which have now
been resolved. He notes the Inspector’s consideration of this issue at IR72-78 and
agrees with Inspector’s conclusion that it is fair and reasonable to regard the site in the
same light as a Strategic Allocation, and to allow the lower level of affordable housing.
The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, and further considers that the provision
of affordable housing in an area with a serious shortfall would be of significant benefit
and attracts substantial weight in favour of the proposal.
4
Other matters
21. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s analysis at IR79-82 that there are a number
of listed buildings outside the application site and notes that in all cases the effect on the
significance of the setting of the assets has been agreed to be negligible. He agrees with
the Inspector at IR82, that any harm to these assets would be less than substantial, and
would be considerably outweighed by the considerable housing and other benefits of the
proposal, thereby satisfying the requirements of paragraph 196 of the Framework.
22. The Secretary of State also notes the Inspector’s consideration at IR83 regarding the loss
of a small amount of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. He agrees with the
Inspector that this is not a significant issue, and that it has not been raised by any
interested party.
Planning conditions
23. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR84-97, the
recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them, and to
national policy in paragraph 55 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is
satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test
set out at paragraph 55 of the Framework and that the conditions set out at Annex A
should form part of his decision.
Planning obligations
24. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR98-104, the planning obligations dated
14 June 2019, paragraph 56 of the Framework, the Guidance and the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State agrees with
the Inspector’s conclusion for the reasons given in IR99 that the obligations comply with
Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 56 of the Framework.
Planning balance and overall conclusion
25. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the appeal scheme is
in accordance with Policies SD4, SD6 and INF4 of the development plan. He has found
the proposal to be in conflict with policies SP2(8), REV 1 and SD10 of the JCS, but given
that the partial review of the JCS is at a very early stage at best, he considers that the
weight to be attached to those conflicts must be reduced. The Secretary of State
therefore considers that the scheme is in accordance with the development plan overall.
He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that
the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.
26. As the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, paragraph 11(d) of
the Framework indicates that planning permission should 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; or (ii) any
adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
27. The Secretary of State considers that the harm to the plan led approach, the loss of an
area of countryside and the very limited harm to heritage assets all attract limited weight
against the proposal.
5
28. The Secretary of State considers that the substantial amount of open market and
affordable housing to be provided attracts substantial weight in favour of the proposal. In
addition, he considers that the construction, investment and employment opportunities of
the proposal should attract moderate weight, and the provision of a Local Centre, primary
school, community hall and sports facilities all attract limited weight in favour of the
proposal, as would on-site and off-site expenditure in relation to flood risk and
biodiversity, and highways matters.
29. The Secretary of State has concluded at paragraph 20 of this decision letter in relation to
heritage assets that there are no protective policies which provide a clear reason for
refusing the development proposed and considers that the substantial benefits of
granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited harms.
30. The Secretary of State concludes that there are no material considerations which
indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the
development plan.
31. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that the appeal should be allowed and
planning permission granted.
Formal decision
32. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby allows your client’s appeal and grants planning
permission subject to the conditions set out in Annex A of this decision letter for a
residential development (up to 850 dwellings) including 35% affordable housing, a
primary school, local centre (comprising up to 2,000 m² gross internal floor area) (A1, A2,
A3, A4, A5 and D1 uses) with no single A1 comparison unit exceeding 500 m² gross
internal floor area, supporting infrastructure, utilities, ancillary facilities, open space,
landscaping, play areas, recreational facilities (including changing facilities and parking),
demolition of existing buildings, new access to the A46(T) and Fiddington Lane in
accordance with application ref: 17/00520/OUT dated 12 May 2017.
33. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
Right to challenge the decision
34. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an
application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for
leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
35. An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of this
permission for agreement of reserved matters has a statutory right of appeal to the
Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or granted conditionally or
if the Local Planning Authority fail to give notice of their decision within the prescribed
period.
36. A copy of this letter has been sent to Tewkesbury District Council and notification has
been sent to others who asked to be informed of the decision.
6
Yours faithfully
Andrew Lynch
Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
Annex A - SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS
General representations
Simon Hopkins 13 January 2020
Lyn Taylor 15 January 2020
7
Annex B – List of Conditions
Reserved matters and time limits
1) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be begun until details of the
access (with the exception of those details approved pursuant to Conditions 17,
19 and 20), appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called ‘the
reserved matters’) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority for that part of the development. The development shall be
carried out as approved.
2) Application for the approval of the reserved matters for phase 1, as identified
by the Phasing Plan required under Condition 7, shall be made to the local
planning authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this
permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the
expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration
of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters
approved for phase 1, whichever is the later. Application for approval of
reserved matters may be submitted for a full phase or part of a phase.
3) Application for the approval of reserved matters for the subsequent phases of
development, as identified by the Phasing Plan required under condition 7, shall
be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of 10 years from
the date of this permission. The subsequent phases of development hereby
permitted shall be begun no later than 2 years from the date of approval of the
last of the reserved matters to be approved for that phase. Application for
approval of reserved matters may be submitted for a full phase or for a part of
a phase.
4) No more than 850 dwellings shall be constructed on the site pursuant to this
planning permission.
5) The total gross retail/commercial floorspace available for use by customers

(excluding toilets and other ancillary facilities) of all premises falling within
Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1 (not including the primary school) of the
Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or in
any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) shall not exceed 2,000
square metres in total and no single A1 unit shall comprise more than 500
square metres.
6) The size of the primary school hereby permitted shall not exceed a single form
of entry.
Phasing
7) Prior to or as part of the first reserved matters application a Phasing Plan for
the whole site shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in
writing. The Phasing Plan shall include details of the approximate number of
market and affordable dwellings for each phase of development together with
general locations and phasing of key infrastructure, including surface water
drainage, green infrastructure, informal and formal public open space, areas of
play, access for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and vehicles and proposed public
transport infrastructure. The Phasing Plan shall be in general accordance with
8
the design principles of the submitted Parameter Plans (Drawing Nos
H.0543_04 Rev K, H.0543_05 Rev J, H.0543_06 Rev P and H.0543_07 Rev H)
by the revised Landscape Mitigation Plan (ref.18095.002 Rev.D), the principles
and objectives of the Design and Access Statement, April 2017, except where
the requirements of other planning conditions require otherwise. Development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan or any
subsequent revisions thereto.
Design
8) Notwithstanding the submitted Indicative Masterplan, A Site Wide Masterplan

Document (SWMD) shall be submitted to the local planning authority either
prior to or alongside the first application for approval of reserved matters for its
written approval. The SWMD shall be in accordance with the submitted
Parameter Plans (Drawing Nos H.0543_04 Rev K, H.0543_05 Rev J, H.0543_06
Rev P and H.0543_07 Rev H) the revised Landscape Mitigation Plan
(ref.18095.002 Rev.D) except where other planning conditions specify
otherwise and shall include a set of Design Principles including:
a) the principles for determining the design, form, heights and general
arrangement of external architectural features of buildings;
b) the principles of the hierarchy for roads and public spaces;
c) potential arrangements for car parking;
d) the principles for the design of the public realm; and
e) the principles for the laying out of the green infrastructure, including the
access, location and general arrangements of the sports pitches, and
play areas.
The SWMD shall include a two-dimensional layout drawing that shows:
f) the broad arrangement of development blocks around a street hierarchy

including indications of active frontages;
g) density ranges;
h) maximum building heights;
i) character areas;
j) the location and general extent of public open space, including formal
recreational areas, Play Areas, Allotments, drainage features access and
car parking;
k) existing landscape features to be retained and/or enhanced;
l) proposed structural planting;
m) the location and general extent of the local centre/neighbourhood area,
including the school, community facility and associated access and car
parking;
n) the location of existing and proposed public rights of way;
Submissions for the approval of the reserved matters shall accord with the
approved SWMD, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning
authority.
9
Waste and recycling
9) The first reserved matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall

be accompanied by details of a recycling strategy for the site. The reserved
matters applications for each phase shall include details of waste storage
provision for that phase which shall be in general accordance with the approved
recycling strategy and the development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
Landscaping
10) The first reserved matters application for any given phase submitted pursuant
to Condition 1 shall include the following details in respect of that phase:
a) a plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, all
trees on the site which have a stem with a diameter, measured over the
bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75 mm,
showing which trees are to be retained and the crown spread of each
retained tree;
b) details of the species, diameter (measured in accordance with paragraph
(a) above), and the approximate height, and an assessment of the
general state of health and stability, of each retained tree and of each
tree which is on land adjacent to the site and to which paragraphs (c)
and (d) below apply;
c) details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree, or of any
tree on land adjacent to the site;
d) details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and of the
position of any proposed excavation, within the crown spread of any
retained tree; and
e) details of the specification and position of fencing and of any other
measures to be taken for the protection of any retained tree from
damage before or during the course of development.
In this condition ‘retained tree’ means an existing tree which is to be retained

in accordance with the plan referred to in paragraph (a) above. Development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
11) The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall
include details of the size, species, and positions or density of all trees,
hedgerows and other landscaping features to be planted, and the proposed
time of planting, as well as maintenance schedules. If within a period of five
years from the date of the planting of any tree that tree, or any tree planted in
replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in
the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective,
another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be
planted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority.
Archaeology
12) No development shall take place within any phase or part of a phase pursuant
to Condition 7 until a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority for that phase or part of
a phase. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and a
10
programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the
nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the
works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of
Investigation.
Ecology
13) No development or site clearance shall take place until a strategic Ecological
Constraints and Opportunities Plan (ECOP) for the application site has been
submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Plan
shall be based upon the submitted Environmental Statement (May 2017) and
Environmental Statement Addendum (May 2019), the Green Infrastructure
Parameter Plan (ref.H.0543.04 Rev.K) and the revised Landscape Mitigation
Plan (ref. ref.18095.002 Rev.D). The Plan shall additionally, but not
exclusively, include the following
a) strategic dark corridors requirements;

b) skylark nesting habitats requirements;
c) integrated amphibian and reptiles habitats and corridors requirements; and
d) an ecological and connection strategy for the Tirle Brook including
geomorphological factors, fish, riparian habitats and Otters.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ECOP

thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
14) Prior to the commencement of development of each phase (or part phase) of
development identified in the phasing plan (Condition 7) a Green Infrastructure
and Biodiversity delivery scheme for that phase shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The delivery scheme shall be
in general accordance with the strategy as set out in Chapter 4 (Ecology) of the
Environmental Statement, the Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan
(ref.H.0543.04 rev.K) the revised Landscape Mitigation Plan (ref.
ref.18095.002 Rev.D) and the ECOP (Condition 13), and shall include, but not
exclusively, the following:
a) risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;

b) identification of “biodiversity protection zones” and their purpose/function;
c) updated ecological survey’s and assessments where required;
d) 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);
e) the locations and timing of works to avoid harm to biodiversity features
and provide effective mitigation and enhancement;
f) the times during construction when specialist ecological or environmental
practitioners need to be present on site to oversee works;
g) responsible persons and lines of communication;
h) the role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works or similar
person;
i) use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs; and
j) detailed ecological enhancement implementation measures relevant to the
pre development ecological site characteristics and opportunities
11
Development for that phase (or part phase) shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved delivery scheme thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with
the Local Planning Authority.
15) No dwelling in any given phase pursuant to Condition 7 shall be occupied until
a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for that phase has been
submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
LEMP for each phase shall, but not exclusively, include the following:
a) description and evaluation of features to be managed in relation to the open

spaces defined in the Environmental Statement, the ECOP (Condition 13)
and Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity delivery scheme appropriate to the
phase;
b) ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management;
c) aims and objectives of management including, but not exclusively, those in
relation to farmland birds, amphibians, reptiles and bats;
d) appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives including
appropriate enhancement measures;
e) prescriptions for management actions;
f) preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being
rolled forward over a five-year period);
g) details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan;
and
h) ongoing monitoring and remedial measures
The LEMP shall also identify the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the
long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the
management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out
(where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives
of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will
be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers
the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.
The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details
16) Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, in each phase (Condition 7), a
lighting scheme demonstrating that strategic dark corridors safeguarding in
accordance with the ECOP (Condition 13) is achieved shall be agreed in writing
with the LPA and thereafter development carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme.
Access and layout
17) Notwithstanding Condition 1, the vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access points
and associated link road and pedestrian crossing points as shown on drawing
no. H556/11 Rev C shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans
before any building hereby permitted is first occupied.
18) Notwithstanding the approved plans and Condition 17 above, the southern
access arm of roundabout R1 as shown on drawing No. H556/11 Rev C shall be
constructed in accordance with revised details to be submitted to and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12
19) Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, the
works to improve the Northway Lane / Fiddington Lane junction with the A46
as generally shown on PFA Drawing No. H556/15 Rev A (subject to detailed
design and road safety audit) shall be complete and open to traffic.
20) Prior to the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved,
the works to improve the Alexandra Way junction with the A46 as generally
shown on PFA Drawing No. H556/14 Rev A (subject to detailed design and road
safety audit) shall be complete and open to traffic.
21) No above ground works comprising the erection of a building shall commence
on site until a scheme has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, for the provision of fire hydrants (served by mains water
supply) and no dwelling shall be occupied until the hydrant serving that
property has been provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
22) Notwithstanding the approved plans no more than 300 dwellings shall be
occupied until a bus/emergency access has been provided to Fiddington Lane in
accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
23) The details to be submitted for the approval of reserved matters for each phase
(or part phase) of development pursuant to Condition 1 shall include vehicular
parking and turning and loading/ unloading facilities within the phase (or part
phase). Thereafter, no building hereby approved shall be occupied until those
facilities and carriageways (including surface water drainage/disposal and
street lighting) serving that building and providing access from the nearest
public highway to that building have been completed to at least binder course
level and the footways to surface course level. The facilities shall be
maintained available for those purposes for the duration of the development.
Strategic highway mitigation
24) Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, the
works to improve M5 junction 9 as generally shown on PFA Drawing No.
H556/12 Rev D (subject to detailed design and road safety audit) shall be
complete and open to traffic.
25) Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, a
scheme to widen the A438 exit from M5 Junction 9 as generally shown on PFA
Drawing No. H556/12 Rev D (subject to detailed design and road safety audit)
shall be complete and open to traffic.
Street maintenance
26) The reserved matters application for each phase submitted pursuant to
Condition 1 shall include details of the proposed arrangements for future
management and maintenance of the proposed streets within that phase or
part of a phase. The streets shall thereafter be managed and maintained in
accordance with the approved details until such time as either a dedication
agreement has been entered into or a private management and maintenance
company has been established for each phase or part of a phase.
13
Construction
27) No development shall take place in a phase or part of a phase, including any
works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement which accords with
the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Delivery Scheme for that phase has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for
that phase or part of a phase. The document shall contain details for
community engagement measures and to control the following:
a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

b) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
d) wheel washing facilities;
e) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;
f) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and
construction works; and
g) details of the site access/routeing strategy/signage during the construction
period.
h) hours of working;
i) site boundaries/hoardings;
j) site activities;
k) Construction Traffic:
i.volumes;
ii.routes;
iii.holding areas;
iv.parking;
v.cleaning;
l) oversize loads;
m) temporary fuel storage.
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the

construction period for the development.
Levels
28) The reserved matters application for each phase or part of a phase that
includes buildings submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall include details of
existing and proposed ground levels and ground floor slab levels relative to
Ordnance Datum of the buildings within that phase or part of a phase or part of
a phase. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
29) Notwithstanding the approved plans/details, a detailed surface water drainage

strategy for the entire development hereby approved shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to, or accompanying,
the first reserved matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1. All
subsequent reserved matters submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall
incorporate the approved surface water drainage strategy and the development
shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved surface water
drainage strategy.The details shall be based on the Flood Risk Assessment &
Drainage Strategy (Revision A, dated February 2017), as amended by drawing
256-220-C ‘Drainage Strategy (Appendix O of the Flood Risk Assessment &
14
Drainage Strategy), included within the Environmental Statement. The
submitted details shall:
a) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method
employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site,
details of existing and proposed overland flow routes, and the measures
taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface
waters;
b) provide details of compensatory pluvial flood storage capacity within the site;
c) provide details of any necessary easements;
d) provide a health and safety risk assessment for the attenuation ponds and
incorporate any recommended safety measures;
e) include details of the phasing for its implementation;
f) 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.
30) No building hereby permitted within each phase or part of a phase of the
development, as defined under Condition 29 section e) above, shall be
occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in
accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority, as part of the reserved matters
applications for that phase or part of a phase.
31) No development approved by this permission for a phase or part of a phase

within the floodplain, as defined by the 1:100 + 35% climate change flood
extent as shown on drawing 256-230 ‘Tirle Brook Modelling 2016’ (Appendix K
of the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy), shall be commenced until
a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage
works, based on the details submitted to the Environment Agency on 22nd
February 2018, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority for that phase or part of a phase. The scheme shall include
details of any phasing of the approved works and shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved programme and details.
32) No development shall be put in to use/occupied until a SUDS maintenance plan

for all SuDS/attenuation features and associated pipework has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved SUDS
maintenance plan shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed
plan.
33) There must be no new buildings, structures (including gates, walls and fences)
or raised ground levels within 8 metres of the top of any bank of any
watercourses, inside or along the boundary of the site, unless agreed otherwise
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
34) Floor levels should be set at a minimum of 600mm above the appropriate
modelled 1% flood level including a 35% allowance for climate change as set
out on Page 21 of Appendix K of the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage
Strategy (Revision A, dated February 2017).
15
Noise
35) Any reserved matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1 including

non-residential buildings shall include details of any extraction, ventilation,
cooling and refrigeration equipment to be installed on or in any building. The
rated noise level from any extraction, ventilation, cooling and refrigeration
equipment to be installed within the application site shall be no more than 5dB
LAeq above the night-time background noise level measured at the nearest
noise sensitive receptors. The method of assessment shall be carried out in
accordance with BS4142:2014: Rating industrial noise affecting mixed
residential and industrial areas (or other document which may replace or
modify the method of assessment). All approved equipment shall be installed in
accordance with the approved details on or in the building prior to occupation
and shall thereafter be operated and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions.
36) Noise levels within the dwellings hereby approved shall not exceed those set
out in BS4142:2014 “Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings”.
Noise levels measured from enclosed outdoor private amenity areas (gardens)
should attain the 50dB(A) desirable criteria (Considered by WRS to be the
LOAEL) and not exceed the upper limit recommended within BS4142:2014
being 55dB(A) (Considered by WRS to be the SOAEL)**.
To verify the above requirements for each phase (or part phase) each reserved
matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1 which includes any dwellings
shall be accompanied by a noise survey to identify any dwellings that would be at
risk of exceeding the LOAEL.
The noise survey shall identify those measures necessary to achieve this
performance at the affected properties, and such measures shall be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works above slab level on the
identified plots.
The mitigation measures so approved shall be completed prior to any dwellings to

which they relate being first occupied and post completion testing to verify that the
noise level requirements of this condition have been met shall be carried out at
sample locations to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority before any of the
dwellings hereby approved are first occupied.
If the post completion testing shows that the limits set out in BS4142:2014 are
exceeded within dwellings and/ or the upper limit of 55dB(A) is exceeded when
measured from enclosed outdoor amenity areas, details of further mitigation to
bring noise levels down to the required limits shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority and the proposed further mitigation shall be
carried out before the dwellings to which these measures relate are first occupied.
** Section 3 WRS Application to Support NPSE Aims – Worcestershire Regulatory

Services Noise Technical Guide 2nd edition 2015.
16
Sustainable travel
37) The approved Residential Travel Plan, H556-DOC07 TP Issue 2, dated 30 May
2018, shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details and
timetable therein (except for the developer to take on the role of co-ordinator
and providing funding), and shall be continued thereafter, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
38) Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, appropriate cabling
and an outside electrical socket must be supplied for that dwelling to enable
ease of installation of an electric vehicle charging point (houses with dedicated
parking). For those parts of the development with unallocated parking i.e.
flats/apartments 1 EV charging point per 10 spaces (as a minimum) should be
provided to be operational at first occupation of the relevant dwelling. The
charging point must comply with BS7671. The socket should comply with
BS1363, and must be provided with a locking weatherproof cover if located
externally to the building.
39) Electric charging points shall be installed in 10% (minimum) of the allocated
parking spaces at the development. This may be phased with 5% of spaces
operational initially and a further 5% made EV charging ready (i.e.
incorporating appropriate cabling) to allow additional provision to meet future
demand. The charging points shall comply with BS7671 and the sockets with
BS 1363 which must be provided with a locking weatherproof cover if located
externally to the building.
40) Applications submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall include details for secure
cycle parking facilities. The details shall include the location, type of rack,
spacing, numbers, method of installation and access to cycle parking. The
approved cycle parking measures shall be fully installed prior to the first
occupation of the building to which it relates.
Contamination
41) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development that was not previously identified it shall be reported in
writing immediately to the local planning authority. An investigation and risk
assessment shall be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a
remediation scheme shall be prepared in accordance with requirement, which
shall be subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation

scheme a verification report shall be prepared, which shall be subject to the
approval in writing of the local planning authority.
Housing mix
42) The first reserved matters application for any given phase (or part phase)
submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall include the submission of a Housing
Mix Statement to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval setting
out, in respect of that phase, how an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types
and tenures will be provided in order to contribute to a mixed and balanced
housing market to 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
17
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 for that
phase (or part phase).
Approved plans
43) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans unless other conditions in this planning permission
specify otherwise:-
a) Site Location Plan ref. FN.00.003 rev. D
b) Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan ref.H.0543.04 rev. K
c) Land Use Parameter Plan ref. H.0543.05 rev. J
d) Access and Movement Parameter Plan ref. H.0543.06 rev. P
e) Building Heights Parameter Plan ref.H.0543.07 rev. H
f) Plan Showing Primary Access Arrangements ref.H556/11 rev. C
g) Proposed Improvements to M5 Junction 9 ref.H556/12 rev. D
h) Western Access ref.H556/14 rev.A
i) Eastern Access ref. H556/15 rev.A
j) Landscape Mitigation Strategy Plan ref. 18095.002 rev.D
k) Drainage Strategy Drawing ref. 256-220 rev. C
18
Report to the Secretary of State for
Housing, Communities and Local
Government
by Phillip J G Ware BSc DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date: 10 September 2019
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL
LAND AT FIDDINGTON, ASHCHURCH, NR TEWKESBURY
APPEAL BY ROBERT HITCHINS LIMITED
Inquiry held on 11 June 2019
Land at Fiddington, Ashchurch, Nr Tewkesbury
File Ref: APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
File Ref: APP/G1630/W/18/3210903

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for
outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Robert Hitchins Limited against Tewkesbury Borough Council.
• The application Ref 17/00520/OUT is dated 12 May 2017.
• The proposal is residential development (up to 850 dwellings), a primary school, local
centre (comprising up to 2,000 m2 gross internal floor area)( A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1
uses) with no single A1 comparison unit exceeding 500 m2 gross internal floor area,
supporting infrastructure, utilities, ancillary facilities, open space, landscaping, play areas,
recreational facilities (including changing facilities and parking), demolition of existing
buildings, new access to the A46(T) and Fiddington Lane.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be allowed and planning
permission be granted.
Procedural matters and background
1. The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved. A range of other
material, including an illustrative Masterplan and a series of Parameter Plans, were also
submitted. The appeal has been considered on this basis.
2. On 17 September 2018 the Secretary of State recovered jurisdiction in respect of the

appeal. The reason was that the appeal raises policy issues related to residential
development of 150 or more dwellings which would significantly impact on the
Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply
and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.
3. An unaccompanied site visit was undertaken, from public land, on the day before the
Inquiry. Both parties agreed that, given the nature of the issues there would be no
benefit from a further visit after the close of the Inquiry.
4. After the appeal was lodged, the Council resolved (18 December 2018) on a number of
putative reasons for refusal1. These related to the strategy for residential development,
the effect on the area and landscape, impact on local and strategic roads, the provision of
community and educational facilities, and the provision of affordable housing.
5. However, before the Inquiry the Council withdrew all objections to the proposal and
recommended that permission should be granted. This will be reflected below in the
summary of the Council’s case. The Council did not call any witnesses and the appellant,
in the light of the changed position, only called one planning witness.
The site and surroundings
6. The appeal site is around 55 hectares in extent and is gently sloping agricultural land
including field boundary hedgerows and trees. It includes an area of highway land and is
located immediately to the south of Ashchurch and around 2k east of Tewkesbury.
7. It is bounded to the west by the M5, to the east by Fiddington Lane with open countryside
beyond, and to the south by open fields. There is an area of open land between the site
1 Core Documents (CD) A31 and A32
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 1
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
and the A46 trunk road to the north, and this area is allocated for development in the
development plan and has an outline permission for a garden centre and a retail outlet
centre2. If implemented. this would obviously significantly change the context of the
appeal site.
8. The local highway network comprises the M5, which is accessed at Junction 9 from the
A46 at Ashchurch. Both are trunk roads administered by Highways England. There are
three public rights of way running across the site, and a bridleway beyond the southern
boundary.
9. The site is not within or adjacent to any national or local landscape designations, nor is it
within the Green Belt. The Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is around 3km
to the east. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjoining the site, though
there are some beyond the boundary. Most of the site is within Flood Zone 1, though
there is other land within Zones 2 and 3.
Planning policy
10. The development plan comprises the saved policies of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan
to 2011 (BLP) (2006)3 and the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core
Strategy (JCS) (2017)4.
11. The JCS covers the period to 2031 and is the most up to date component of the
development plan, replacing most of the strategic policies of the BLP. A full list of the JCS
policies which the parties agree are of most importance to this appeal is set out in the
Planning Statement of Common Ground (SOCG)5. When adopted, the intention was that
the JCS was to be the subject of an immediate review due to the housing shortfall, and an
Issues and Options paper has been produced with this in mind. There is no timetable for
the review.
12. The BLP was intended to cover the period to 2011. The appeal site is not affected by any
allocation or designation in the BLP.
13. Work has begun on the emerging Tewkesbury Local Plan, which will provide locally
specific policies and allocations within the strategic framework of the JCS. However this
is at a very early stage and the parties agree that no weight should be accorded to it.
14. There is no ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan covering the site. The area was designated as a
Neighbourhood Plan area in 2013 and there was a Regulation 14 draft consultation in
20186. The parties agreed that this should not be afforded any weight at this stage.
15. The Council has prepared a number of Supplementary Planning Guidance documents.
That dealing with Affordable Housing is the most directly relevant to the issues in this
appeal.
2 Document 14 Paragraph 6.1

3 CD D11
4 CD D1
5 Document 14 Paragraph 11
6 CD D9
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
16. The site lies within an area which has been awarded Garden Town Status7. The parties
agree that this inclusion does not prejudice or prejudge the normal operation of the
planning system.
The proposal and planning history
17. The application plans and supporting documents are listed in the Planning SOCG8.
18. As shown on the Parameter Plans the proposal includes up to 850 dwellings, with a mix of
house types and 35% affordable housing. The dwellings would be generally two storeys
in height.
19. The proposal includes a local centre with a range of small units intended to serve the day
to day needs of the residents. It is indicated as being centrally located on the main
access corridor. A primary school, initially with a single form entry, is proposed. This
could accommodate up to 210 pupils.
20. The illustrative Masterplan shows various types of green infrastructure, including general
amenity space as well as formal and informal recreation areas. A more substantial area
of open space is shown in the north-western part of the site, including sports pitches and
changing facilities.
21. Although access is a reserved matter, the illustrative Masterplan shows that the proposed
primary vehicular access would pass through the approved garden centre and retail outlet
centre and thence onto the A46. The primary access would be the modified
A46/Alexandra Way junction. The scheme would also deliver other highway improvement
works9.
22. Both the appeal site and the commercial land to the north are under the control of the
appellant, and the access arrangements can be delivered regardless of progress on the
commercial scheme. The parties agree that the provision of access could be the subject
of conditions.
23. The only history related to this site is a scheme, dismissed on appeal in 1993, for a
mixed-use development.
Statements of Common Ground
24. Three SOCGs have been submitted:
• A planning SOCG (7 June 2019) between the appellants and the Council10.
• A highways SOCG (16 April 2019) between the appellants and Highways
England11.
• A SOCG between the appellants and Ashchurch Rural Parish Council12.
7 CD D14 summarises
8 Document 14 Section 4
9 Summarised at Document 14 Paragraph 37
10 Document 14
11 Document 15
12 Document 13
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
The planning SOCG with the Council
25. The key elements of this SOCG are:
• Both parties agree that the appeal should be allowed and would represent
sustainable development.
• The site is in an accessible and sustainable location and is capable of access to

nearby employment, shops, facilities, schools and other services.
• The revised Landscape Mitigation Plan sets out the expectations for the
detailed landscape and layout design, in a manner acceptable to both parties.
These matters are points of clarification rather than amendments to the
scheme. A condition would require the submission of a site-wide Masterplan.
• At the time of the adoption of the JCS, there was a shortfall of 2,455 homes
required to meet the housing requirement for Tewkesbury Borough.
• JCS Policy REV1 set out a requirement for an immediate partial review of the
JCS, and the JCS authorities published a Local Development Scheme in
October 2017. However this did not include a timetable and it is unclear
whether this is to be a full or partial review. The parties agreed that no
weight can be attached to the JCS review at this stage.
• Using the approach to housing land supply adopted in the Highnam decision13
and using the Council’s figures there is a 2.77 year supply. The Council does
not accept the Secretary of State’s approach in Highnam, but even on their
figures there is only a 4.33 year supply. For the purposes of this appeal, both
parties agree that the shortfall is “substantial” and that if new sources of
deliverable housing are not identified the position will worsen.
• Both parties agree that the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 of the Framework
is therefore engaged.
• The proposal will make a timely and deliverable contribution to the housing
shortfall, and can incorporate high quality design.
• The proposal is commensurate with the Garden Town status of the area and
would not be premature for this or any other reason.
• The saved policies of the BLP should be accorded weight to the extent that
they are consistent with the Framework.
• As the appeal site is not allocated for any purpose in the BLP, it is open
countryside in policy terms. However the parties agree that the boundaries
were not reviewed as part of the JCS and will need to be reviewed as part of
the emerging Local Plan to accommodate the development requirements of
the JCS.
13 CD H4
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
The highways SOCG with Highways England
• The preliminary highway design was approved as part of the outlet centre,
which included the creation/improvement of accesses from the A46.
• The design and layout arrangements14 currently proposed are an acceptable

scheme subject to detailed design and road safety audit. These detailed
matters can be secured by conditions.
• There is agreement on a range of matters including traffic generation, trip

distribution and traffic growth. Mitigation works to Junction 9 are being
worked up and can be secured. The site is to be served by a half hourly bus
service to/from the town centre, ensured through the s106 Obligation. The
accessibility credentials of the site are agreed.
The SOCG with Ashchurch Rural Parish Council
• These parties agreed that there is a requirement for new housing to meet the
shortfall, and that the current proposal would meet some of this need.
• Affordable housing would be a considerable benefit. The Parish would prefer

5% of the dwellings to be bungalows.
• The impact of the Tewkesbury Area Draft Concept Masterplan15, identifying

the area as part of an employment centre, would be considerably greater than
that of the appeal scheme, and are unacceptable to the Parish.
• The Illustrative Masterplan represents an appropriate form and distribution of

uses.
• If it is concluded that there would be an unacceptable highways impact on

Fiddington Lane and elsewhere, then a s106 contribution of £125,000 would
address the Parish’s highways concerns16. (However the Highway Authority
does not consider this is necessary17.)
• The parties agreed that there is no scheme for off-line improvements to the
A46 and that, were any scheme to be required in future, it would not be
dependent on the appeal site.
• The scheme could integrate well with footpaths, which provide opportunities to
access facilities including Tewkesbury School.
• The parties agreed that the appeal proposal would provide some community
facilities and that other uses could be accommodated within the range of uses
sought.
14 Plan nos. H556/14A and H556/15A

15 CD D8
16 Document 1 explains the appellant’s position and illustrates the type of measures
17 Document 5
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
• The SOCG records that the size and scale of the development and its
landscape impact is not agreed.
The case for the appellant
28. The approach to appeals which is encouraged by national guidance is that parties should
continue to discuss contentious matters even in the lead up to the Inquiry. This has
happened in this case and has led the Council to a position where it is able to withdraw all
opposition to the proposal. This is reflected in the Planning SOCG, which confirms the
position of both parties - which is that the proposal represents sustainable development,
that there are no planning reasons why the appeal should be dismissed, and that the
appeal should be allowed
29. The original first reason for refusal related to plan making. However the use of the
appeal site for strategic scale housing development is in broad conformity with the
development plan. In any case, the Council accepts that it cannot identify a five year
supply of housing land and that there is a substantial shortfall. The policies which are
most important for determining the application are out-of-date, and the ‘tilted balance’ is
engaged. Given the housing land supply position it is agreed that there is no need to
consider other potential routes to the tilted balance.
30. The Council’s original putative reason for refusal relating to landscape matters was always
misconceived, but discussions with the Council have led to a masterplanning approach
which meets the Council’s concerns.
31. Highways matters have been the subject of extensive discussions with the highway
authorities. The result is a comprehensive agreement including improvement works to
the northbound off-slip and gyratory improvements at Junction 9 of the M5, access works
to serve the development and changes to the signalisation at the Aston Cross junction18.
Although the Highway Authority does not consider it necessary, the appellant is prepared
to place monies aside by way of a planning obligation to mitigate any rat running on local
roads19.
32. The other former putative reasons for refusal concerned contributions to various aspects
of infrastructure provision. Agreement has been reached on public open space, outdoor
recreation, sports facilities, education and library contributions. Planning obligations have
been completed in relation to all these matters and there is no longer an objection on that
basis.
33. There remain two areas of objection by the Parish Council concerning the size of the
development and its landscape impact. The Parish Council did not attend the Inquiry to
address these matters20. There is therefore no clarity as to the nature of the objection
related to the scale of the proposal. Nor is there any evidence to counter the conclusion
jointly reached on landscape matters between the main parties.
34. The Council is concerned that the scheme should provide 40% affordable housing in place
of the 35% incorporated in the scheme. However this is essentially a fairness argument
as the proposal is of a strategic scale and, as such, should be considered against the
policy related to strategic allocations, which seeks a minimum of 35%. This choice is
enshrined in the Obligation, and either 35% or 40% can be selected on an evidential
18 Document 4
19 Examples of possible works at Document 1
20 Mr Hargreaves spoke only in relation to highway mitigation matters
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
basis. In any event, the Council do not press this point such that they recommend
dismissing the appeal, whatever conclusion is reached on this matter.
35. There is no contest to the appellant’s summary of the benefits arising from the scheme21.
Nobody is suggesting that any harm (such as it might be) outweighs the benefits to the
extent required to warrant a rejection of the appeal.
The case for the Council
36. The first putative reason for refusal, dealing with the strategy for new residential
development (related to JCS policies SP1, SP2, SD10 and REV1), was withdrawn by the
Council by virtue of an updated position on deliverable housing sites. As a result of this
updated position the authority accepts that the ‘tilted balance’ under paragraph 11 of the
Framework is engaged.
37. The second putative reason for refusal related to the character of the site and its
surroundings (related to JCS policies SD4 and SD6). The Council no longer contests this
matter, following an agreed approach illustrated by a revised Landscape Mitigation Plan.
This clarifies the landscape and urban design matters which need to be taken into account
at the masterplanning and detailed design stages. The agreed conditions address these
matters. The Council is satisfied that a high quality development can be delivered.
38. The third putative reason for refusal related to the impact on the local and strategic road
network in relation to JCS policy INF1. This was the subject of additional material
submitted by the appellant and, following further work and discussions with Highways
England, this reason for refusal was withdrawn.
39. Putative reasons five and six dealt with community and education facilities and open
space, outdoor recreation and sports facilities (in the context of BLP policies RCN 1 and
GNL11 and JCS policies INF4, INF6 and INF7). The authority accepts that the submitted
planning obligations address these matters. The Council and the County Council have
submitted CIL Compliance Statements dealing with libraries and education, affordable
housing, play and community facilities22.
40. Finally, putative reason for refusal four dealt with the provision of affordable housing, in
the context of Policy SD12 of the JCS. One of the obligations deals with the provision of
affordable housing, but there remains an issue between the parties as to whether the
scheme should provide 35% (the appellant’s position) or 40% (the Council’s position).
41. CS policy SP12 seeks a minimum of 40% affordable housing outside strategic sites - this
applies to the appeal site. The appellant’s have not submitted a viability appraisal to
justify a lower figure. It is not reasonable to argue that 35% is sought on strategic sites,
as this is not such a site. This figure is, in any case, a minimum.
42. Overall, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
Written representations and those appearing at the Inquiry
43. Mr Hargreaves appeared for Ashchurch Rural Parish Council. He was content to rely on
written submission in the main. However he stressed the highway safety aspects of any
21 Summarised at Mr Hutchinson’s paragraph 8.63.1

22 Documents 2 and 3
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
increased use of the lanes – which are well used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists.
The safety of these vulnerable road users would be harmed if works to calm traffic were
not undertaken. The written submissions by the Parish Council opposed the proposal in
relation to its size and scale; the impact on the A46/J9 and Fiddington Lane; landscape
impact; and loss of amenity to local residents. The Parish Council suggested, without
prejudice, a range of necessary benefits if the scheme were approved.
44. Other written representations23 raised very similar issues.
Conditions and obligations
45. A set of conditions have been prepared, without prejudice, and agreed between the
Council and the appellant. They were discussed and slightly modified at the Inquiry and
the final version forms an appendix to this report.
46. Draft Planning Obligations were discussed at the Inquiry. The final obligations (all dated
14 June 2019) were subsequently submitted and the parties were given the opportunity
for further comment24. These dealt with Education and Highways; Affordable Housing;
Highways and Transportation; Open Space and Communities; and Highways Mitigation.
They are dealt with below.
23 On file
24 Docs 8 - 11
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
Inspector’s conclusions
[Numbers in square brackets denote source paragraphs]
Background and main considerations
47. Despite the Council’s position, which is that planning permission should be granted, it is
still useful to consider the proposal largely under the headings of the former putative
reasons for refusal. The main considerations are therefore:
• Whether the proposal would prejudice the plan led approach to the provision
of housing
• Whether the proposal would harm the landscape character of the area
• Whether the proposal would harm highway safety
• The amount of affordable housing which should be provided
The plan led approach
48. The site is not identified for any purpose in either part of the development plan (the BLP
and the JCS). Given the size of the site and the scale of the development proposed, it
would normally be appropriate for the site to be identified in the JCS as this is a recent
element of the development plan and deals with strategic sites [25]. It is not identified
as such, and thus is classed as countryside in policy terms. However the Council agree
that, as the boundaries were not reviewed as part of the JCS, there will need to be a
review within the emerging Local Plan due to the housing requirements [25].
49. There is no dispute that the proposal is of a scale that it would be classed as a strategic
site. It was recommended as such by the Inspector during the course of the JCS
Examination, but was not included in the final adopted version due to highways issues
(which have since been resolved – see below).
50. On the face of it, the proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan. The appeal
scheme conflicts with JCS policies SP2(8)), REV 1 and SD10. These support development
on allocated sites and within the urban areas, and identify the need for an immediate
partial review of the JCS to help meet the housing shortfall.
51. However the JCS was adopted with a considerable deficit in housing provision which, it
was anticipated, would be addressed in the short term by a partial review [11, 25]. The
overarching approach of the JCS (Strategic Objective 8) is the delivery of a wide choice of
quality homes in order to meet housing need. This is reflected by JCS policy SP1 and SP2
which distribute the overall minimum housing requirement amongst the JCS authorities.
52. The current position is that there is a serious housing shortfall as demonstrated by the
work on the AMR, and the intended immediate partial review of the JCS is at a very early
stage at best. This is an agreed position and only the quantum of the shortfall is not
fully agreed between the parties. If the approach adopted by the Secretary of State in
the Highnam case is adopted the provision is only 2.77 years, or 4.3 years if the Council’s
approach is preferred [25].
53. However it is not necessary in determining this appeal to reach a judgement on which
approach is preferred, as both parties specifically accept that there is a substantial
shortfall. In addition, whatever the level of the current undersupply, the parties agree
that it will worsen in coming years [25].
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
54. Given the substantial shortfall in housing land supply, the proposal falls squarely into the
provisions of paragraph 11 of the Framework, in the absence of any harm to assets of
particular importance which might provide a clear reason for refusing the development
proposed. This is wholly accepted by the Council, and both parties agree that there is no
need to consider whether there are any other routes to the so-called ‘tilted balance’.
55. The putative reason for refusal stated that the proposal could prejudice the outcome of
the plan making process, with reference to the review of the JCS. However the JCS
review and the emerging Local Plan are at very early stages and carry little or no weight
at this stage. On that basis, and given the lack of any objection from the Council, it
cannot be concluded that the development would undermine the plan-making process.
56. In this context the Ashchurch Garden Town is no more than an idea at present and has
little status – if pursued, it would have to go through the planning process in its own
right. In any event, the parties agree that the current proposal would not prejudice, and
would in fact materially assist, the concept [16, 25].
57. Overall, the position is that the appeal scheme is not identified in the development plan
and is therefore in the countryside in policy terms and is in conflict with the JCS in this
respect. However the situation is unusual in that the JCS stressed the need for housing
delivery and was adopted in the knowledge of a housing shortfall. The intended
immediate review of this part of the development plan is progressing, at best, very
slowly. The appeal site nearly made it into the JCS as a strategic site, and only failed
because of highways issues (since resolved). The appeal site is available and the
development is deliverable, at least in part, during the next five year period. There is no
evidence that the proposal is premature.
58. For all those reasons, in line with the Council’s position, it is considered that the appeal
would not prejudice the plan led approach to the delivery of housing, but would in fact
make a major contribution towards addressing the deficit.
Landscape character
59. The appeal site is gently sloping agricultural land, including hedgerows and trees. It is
within the Settled Unwooded Vale character type in the Gloucester Landscape Character
Assessment. In the northern and western areas there are strong visual and noise effects
from the motorway and the A46, which significantly detract from its rural character,
whereas in the south-eastern area the site is more tranquil.
60. The only issue to be decided at this stage is the principle of the development, in outline.
However it is quite reasonable to consider the potential landscape effects and approaches
towards design and mitigation.
61. A built development on the site, would obviously result in a change to landscape
character from open fields to an urban use. As noted in the appellant’s Environmental
Statement there would be a loss of openness and an expansion of the current urban area.
However the Council’s position has always been that the site is capable of accommodating
some development. This was the position during the JCS process and when officers
reported on the current proposal.
62. The Tewkesbury Area Draft Concept Masterplan [27], is not a development plan
document as it is part of the evidence base to support work on the review of the JCS.
Although as a planning document it carries no weight (nor has it been suggested that it
should have weight) it is notable that it envisages the appeal site being developed and
the countryside lost (albeit that it is shown for a different use).
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
63. It is inevitable that any greenfield development intended to address the pressing need for
housing will result in similar landscape impacts. But in this case the site is not subject to
any local or national landscape designations, and there is no reason to disagree with the
parties that the sensitivity of the area is medium/low.
64. Given the proposed intrusion into the rural landscape, it is relevant to consider
opportunities for minimising the impact. The concerns of the Council at the application
stage related particularly to the effect on the Gloucestershire Way (close to the southern
boundary of the site) and the way in which the linkages to other developments in the
area would be handled. However these concerns have subsequently been assuaged by
the Revised Landscape Mitigation Plan which has been produced and agreed within the
SOCG.
65. This Plan does not depart from the submitted parameter plans but indicates the form the
development could take, so as to give reassurance that any issues could be resolved at
the detailed stage. It shows an area on the eastern side of the site kept clear of
buildings, a flexibility zone on the south side of the site to allow for a varied building line,
strategic green infrastructure planting along the southern site margin, and potential views
retained in the southwestern corner. This addresses the concerns raised by the Council at
an earlier stage in the process, and suggests a form of development compatible with its
setting.
66. The proposal, insofar as it can be assessed at this stage, complies with JCS policies SD4,
which requires a masterplan and a design brief demonstrating how various design
principles have been incorporated. These include context, legibility and identity, and the
design of landscaped areas. It also complies with JCS policy SD6 which requires that
development has regard to landscape setting.
Highways impact
67. The effect of the proposal on the strategic and local highway network was a particular
concern to the Council, and was the only matter which led to the appeal site not being
designated as a strategic site in the JCS.
68. The preliminary design of the access arrangements was approved as part of the
permission for the outlet centre and garden centre to the north [7, 21]. At the time of
the Council’s putative reasons for refusal, Highways England had a number of outstanding
concerns regarding the adequacy of the information.
69. It is not necessary to record the detailed discussions which have since taken place
between the appellants and Highways England. Suffice it to say that agreement has been
reached on all matters related to the effect on and access to the strategic road network
and there is no objection remaining in this regard [26]. Subject to detailed design and
safety audit the access arrangements can go ahead in a satisfactory manner in tandem
with the permitted development to the north or in isolation. It would not conflict with JCS
policy INF4.
70. Related to traffic generation, the intention is that the site would be served by a half
hourly bus service to and from the town centre. This would improve the accessibility
credentials of the site still further.
71. There remains local concern that there could be ‘rat-running’ through local roads, though
this was not predicted by highway modelling. The appellants have illustrated the location
and type of measures which could be introduced [27, 31], subject to consultation with
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
stakeholders. The Mitigation Works Fund contribution in the relevant Obligation relates to
monies for localised traffic calming on minor roads/lanes if this should be required.
Although the County Council does not consider that this is necessary, local residents have
written and spoken to explain the issues in the local road network and explain their
concern that the development could exacerbate the position. It is considered that there
is sufficient evidence, albeit anecdotal, to indicate that the Mitigation Works Fund is
necessary.
The amount of affordable housing
72. The only matter at issue between the appellants and the Council is the question of the
amount of affordable housing which the scheme should deliver. The appellants have put
forward 35% whereas the Council seek 40%. Both figures are included in the planning
obligation and the decision maker is requested to indicate the appropriate level of
provision [34, 41]. However it is noted that, even if the lower figure is preferred, the
Council do not oppose the proposal as a whole.
73. The background to this dispute is JCS policy SD12. This provides that the Council will
seek to negotiate for affordable housing. In the case of Strategic Allocations a minimum
of 35% affordable housing will be sought (this is the appellant’s position), and elsewhere
a minimum of 40% will be sought (this is the Council’s position).
74. The appeal site is not a Strategic Allocation, for reasons described above. Therefore strict
compliance with the development plan requires negotiation based on a minimum of 40%.
75. The appellant’s position is not based on a viability case (indeed no viability evidence was
submitted by any party), but on grounds of fairness. It is considered that there is much
to commend this approach.
76. The appeal site and the proposed development are around twice the threshold which the
JCS would regard as a strategic site. During the JCS Examination, the Inspector indicated
that it was likely to be recommended as it met a wide range of criteria [49]. However it
fell at the last hurdle and was not allocated due to highways concerns – the same
highways concerns which have now been overcome.
77. The JCS itself recognises that Strategic Allocations will have their own deliverability and
viability challenges and that there will need to be a balance between infrastructure
provision and affordable housing in the context of deliverability. This is presumably the
reason for the lower start point for such sites. Given the very particular background of
the appeal site, it is reasonable to regard it in the same light as a Strategic Allocation.
78. For those reasons, although the 35% provision enshrined in the proposal is contrary to
JCS policy, there exist material considerations which favour acceptance of that level of
affordable housing.
Other considerations
79. There are a number of designated heritage assets identified beyond the application site:
• The Abbey Church of St Mary in Tewkesbury (Grade I)
• The Church of St Nicholas in Ashchurch (Grade II)
• Rectory Farmhouse (Grade II)
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
80. In all cases the affect on the significance of the setting of the asset has been agreed as
negligible. There is no evidence to counter that position.
81. There is also a field barn to the south of the site which Council officers (when reporting on
the proposal) considered might be worthy of non-designated asset status. Even if this
were the case, and although the setting of the barn would experience moderate harm to
significance, this would be to an asset of very low local significance.
82. If it were considered that there were any harm to these assets, it would be less than
substantial. This would be considerably outweighed by the considerable housing and
other benefits of the proposal.
83. The development would result in the loss of a small area of Best and Most Versatile
agricultural land. However this has not been raised as an issue by any party in the
context of the land supply in the area.
Conditions
84. Draft conditions were considered during the Inquiry and largely agreed. A schedule of
recommended conditions is appended to this report.
85. Condition 1 requires the submission of reserved matters in the usual way. However in
relation to Conditions 2 and 3 (approval of reserved matters) the Council requested that
the default limits are reduced to 18 months. This is not agreed by the appellant, as there
is no good justification for reducing the standard time limits especially given the scale of
the development and the time needed to prepare the details. This point is accepted, as
adequate time must be allowed for the preparation and submission of reserved matters
for such a substantial scheme.
86. The scale of the development needs to be controlled, as this was the basis on which the
proposal has been considered (Conditions 4, 5 and 6). For a similar reason the housing
mix needs to be controlled (Condition 42). For clarity, the approved plans need to be set
out (Condition 43)
87. The parties do not agree the detail of a phasing condition (Condition 7). The key
difference is that the appellant suggests that a phasing plan can be submitted prior to or
as part of the first reserved matters application, whereas the Council wish it to be
submitted prior to the first such application. No persuasive reason has been put forward
which demonstrates why the phasing plan could not be submitted concurrently with the
first application, and this wording is preferred.
88. The same point is raised in relation to a site-wide masterplan document (Condition 8),
and the parties differ as to when this needs to be submitted. As before, although the
Council’s preference to deal with matter sequentially is understood, it is not considered
that there is any particular need for this to be submitted prior to the first reserved
matters application.
89. When the first reserved matters application is submitted, it needs to be accompanied by
an overall recycling strategy (Condition 9) so as to encourage a sustainable approach to
waste, and landscaping details (Conditions 10 and 11) in the interests of the appearance
of the development and its relationship with the surrounding area. The latter details can
be submitted on a phased basis.
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
90. There is no current evidence of particular archaeological interest in the site, but a
condition (Condition 12) is necessary for heritage reasons to ensure investigation of each
phase.
91. In the interests of protecting and encouraging ecology, a suite of conditions is necessary
in relation to an Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan (Conditions 13 – 16).
92. The details of the highway layout would be submitted as part of the applications for
reserved matters. However additional conditions are necessary in the interests of
highway safety to control certain matters which are fundamental to the agreement which
has been reached between the appellant, the Highways England and the Council. These
include local works (Conditions 17 - 23), street maintenance (Condition 26) and strategic
highway mitigation (Conditions 24 and 25). There was a discussion at the Inquiry as to
whether specific conditions were necessary related to the retiming of signals at Aston
Cross. However this can be achieved by other means, and conditions are not necessary.
93. In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of the surrounding area and of early
phases of the development, a Construction Method Statement needs to be submitted and
implemented (Condition 27).
94. So as to provide sustainable drainage and minimise flood risk, a series of conditions are
necessary (Conditions 28 - 34). These relate to levels and drainage features.
95. In the interests of the amenity of other occupiers of the development, conditions are
necessary to control details of noise generating equipment and monitor noise levels
(Conditions 35 and 36).
96. Various matters need to be controlled in order to encourage sustainable modes of

transport. These include a Residential Travel Plan, electric charging points and cycle
parking (Conditions 37 – 40).
97. Although there is no indication of contamination on the site, in the interests of the health
of future occupiers it is necessary to ensure that any problems which are encountered are
dealt with properly (Condition 41).
Planning obligations
98. Five separate Planning Obligations have been submitted. These deal with a range of
matters which were discussed at the Inquiry and which were addressed in evidence and
by the CIL Compliance Statements submitted by the Councils. These statements cover
libraries and education, infrastructure and play, pitches/changing facilities and community
facilities respectively. They clearly set out the basis of the Obligations in respect of policy
and guidance. There is no dispute regarding these Obligations, which address key
elements of the scheme.
99. Leaving aside two matters discussed below there is no suggestion that the obligations do
not comply with the development plan or national policy. The contributions are directly
related to the proposal and are necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms. Therefore it is considered that the Obligations meet the policy in
paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the tests in Regulation 122
of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.
100. The contents of the Obligations can therefore be given weight in the determination of
the appeal – allowing for the fact that some of the provisions are intended to mitigate
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
the effects of the development (for example elements of the highways works). However
the provision of affordable housing is one of the significant benefits of the proposal.
101. The Highways Mitigation Obligation deals with the likelihood of the minor roads/lanes in
the vicinity being used as a ‘rat run’ as a result of the development. It provides that the
owners will hold the sum of £125,000 for a period of 10 years, to be released under
certain circumstances for mitigation works.
102. As discussed above, the evidence is limited and anecdotal in this respect. However the
lanes in question are narrow and any significant increase in traffic as a result of the
development would be prejudicial to highway safety. It is inevitably difficult to predict
traffic flows in the future.
103. The Highways Mitigation Obligation is conditional on the Secretary of State not stating
that the provisions are irrelevant or not required to grant permission or not compliant
with the CIL Regulations, and confirming that it is necessary. This course of action is
recommended.
104. The Affordable Housing Obligation provides for 35% affordable housing, but as an
alternative for 40% if the Secretary of State states that this is required. For the reasons
set out above, this is not considered to be the case and, for the avoidance of doubt, it is
recommended that this is explicitly stated.
Planning balance and conclusion
105. The proposal would provide a substantial amount of open market housing, in line with
national and local policy and in the context of a substantial local housing shortfall. This
is especially important as there is no significant progress towards addressing that
shortfall. Substantial weight can be accorded to the provision of general needs housing.
The site is accepted to be in a sustainable location and has the support of the Council.
It was only not allocated as a strategic allocation in the development plan due to
highway concerns which have now been resolved.
106. Similarly the development would produce a 35% level of affordable housing, again in the
context of considerable housing need. This is also a substantial benefit from the
scheme.
107. It is also considered that the construction and investment expenditure and employment
should be accorded significant weight.
108. Limited weight can be accorded to the provision of a Local Centre, primary school,
community hall and sports facilities, although these are primarily aimed at addressing
the needs of the residents of the new development itself. Similarly, there would be
some limited weight to be accorded to on-site and off-site expenditure in relation to
flood risk and biodiversity, and highways matters – but again these are largely required
to mitigate the effect of the development.
109. It is recognised that there is some conflict with the development plan in terms of the
plan led approach, the loss of an area of countryside, and any very limited harm to
heritage assets. However there are very substantial benefits to be weighed in the
planning balance.
110. It is agreed that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and
that there is a substantial shortfall. Under those circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the
Framework indicates that planning permission should be granted unless: (i) the
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular

importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or (ii) any
adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
111. In this case, the benefits of the proposal carry significant weight, and the Council also
support the grant of permission.
Recommendations
112. It is recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission be granted.
113. It is further recommended that it be stated that an affordable housing contribution of

35% should be made by the scheme.
114. It is further recommended that it be stated that the mitigation works, dealing with rat
running in local lanes, is necessary.
P. J. G. Ware
Inspector
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
Recommended planning conditions

Reserved matters and time limits
1) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be begun until details of the
access (with the exception of those details approved pursuant to Conditions 17, 19
and 20), appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called ‘the reserved
matters’) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority for that part of the development. The development shall be carried out as
approved.
2) Application for the approval of the reserved matters for phase 1, as identified by the
Phasing Plan required under Condition 7, shall be made to the local planning
authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years
from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of
approval of the last of the reserved matters approved for phase 1, whichever is the
later. Application for approval of reserved matters may be submitted for a full phase
or part of a phase.
3) Application for the approval of reserved matters for the subsequent phases of
development, as identified by the Phasing Plan required under condition 7, shall be
made to the local planning authority before the expiration of 10 years from the date
of this permission. The subsequent phases of development hereby permitted shall be
begun no later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved
matters to be approved for that phase. Application for approval of reserved matters
may be submitted for a full phase or for a part of a phase.
4) No more than 850 dwellings shall be constructed on the site pursuant to this planning
permission.
5) The total gross retail/commercial floorspace available for use by customers

(excluding toilets and other ancillary facilities) of all premises falling within Class A1,
A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1 (not including the primary school) of the Schedule to the
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or in any provision equivalent
to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or
without modification) shall not exceed 2,000 square metres in total and no single A1
unit shall comprise more than 500 square metres.
6) The size of the primary school hereby permitted shall not exceed a single form of
entry.
Phasing
7) Prior to or as part of the first reserved matters application a Phasing Plan for the
whole site shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.
The Phasing Plan shall include details of the approximate number of market and
affordable dwellings for each phase of development together with general locations
and phasing of key infrastructure, including surface water drainage, green
infrastructure, informal and formal public open space, areas of play, access for
pedestrians, cyclists, buses and vehicles and proposed public transport infrastructure.
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
The Phasing Plan shall be in general accordance with the design principles of the
submitted Parameter Plans (Drawing Nos H.0543_04 Rev K, H.0543_05 Rev J,
H.0543_06 Rev P and H.0543_07 Rev H) by the revised Landscape Mitigation Plan
(ref.18095.002 Rev.D), the principles and objectives of the Design and Access
Statement, April 2017, except where the requirements of other planning conditions
require otherwise. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
Phasing Plan or any subsequent revisions thereto.
Design
8) Notwithstanding the submitted Indicative Masterplan, A Site Wide Masterplan

Document (SWMD) shall be submitted to the local planning authority either prior to
or alongside the first application for approval of reserved matters for its written
approval. The SWMD shall be in accordance with the submitted Parameter Plans
(Drawing Nos H.0543_04 Rev K, H.0543_05 Rev J, H.0543_06 Rev P and H.0543_07
Rev H) the revised Landscape Mitigation Plan (ref.18095.002 Rev.D) except where
other planning conditions specify otherwise and shall include a set of Design
Principles including:
a) the principles for determining the design, form, heights and general
arrangement of external architectural features of buildings;
b) the principles of the hierarchy for roads and public spaces;
c) potential arrangements for car parking;
d) the principles for the design of the public realm; and
e) the principles for the laying out of the green infrastructure, including the
access, location and general arrangements of the sports pitches, and play
areas.
The SWMD shall include a two-dimensional layout drawing that shows:
f) the broad arrangement of development blocks around a street hierarchy

including indications of active frontages;
g) density ranges;
h) maximum building heights;
i) character areas;
j) the location and general extent of public open space, including formal
recreational areas, Play Areas, Allotments, drainage features access and car
parking;
k) existing landscape features to be retained and/or enhanced;
l) proposed structural planting;
m) the location and general extent of the local centre/neighbourhood area,
including the school, community facility and associated access and car
parking;
n) the location of existing and proposed public rights of way;
Submissions for the approval of the reserved matters shall accord with the approved
SWMD, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Waste and recycling
9) The first reserved matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall be

accompanied by details of a recycling strategy for the site. The reserved matters
applications for each phase shall include details of waste storage provision for that
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
phase which shall be in general accordance with the approved recycling strategy and
the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Landscaping
10) The first reserved matters application for any given phase submitted pursuant to
Condition 1 shall include the following details in respect of that phase:
a) a plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, all trees
on the site which have a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a
point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75 mm, showing which trees
are to be retained and the crown spread of each retained tree;
b) details of the species, diameter (measured in accordance with paragraph (a)
above), and the approximate height, and an assessment of the general state
of health and stability, of each retained tree and of each tree which is on land
adjacent to the site and to which paragraphs (c) and (d) below apply;
c) details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree, or of any tree
on land adjacent to the site;
d) details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and of the
position of any proposed excavation, within the crown spread of any retained
tree; and
e) details of the specification and position of fencing and of any other measures
to be taken for the protection of any retained tree from damage before or
during the course of development.
In this condition ‘retained tree’ means an existing tree which is to be retained in

accordance with the plan referred to in paragraph (a) above. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
11) The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include
details of the size, species, and positions or density of all trees, hedgerows and other
landscaping features to be planted, and the proposed time of planting, as well as
maintenance schedules. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting
of any tree that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted
or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority,
seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species and size as that
originally planted shall be planted in accordance with details to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Archaeology
12) No development shall take place within any phase or part of a phase pursuant to
Condition 7 until a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority for that phase or part of a phase.
The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and a programme and
methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent
person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written
Scheme of Investigation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved Written Scheme of Investigation.
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
Ecology
13) No development or site clearance shall take place until a strategic Ecological
Constraints and Opportunities Plan (ECOP) for the application site has been
submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall
be based upon the submitted Environmental Statement (May 2017) and
Environmental Statement Addendum (May 2019), the Green Infrastructure
Parameter Plan (ref.H.0543.04 Rev.K) and the revised Landscape Mitigation Plan
(ref. ref.18095.002 Rev.D). The Plan shall additionally, but not exclusively, include
the following
a) strategic dark corridors requirements;

b) skylark nesting habitats requirements;
c) integrated amphibian and reptiles habitats and corridors requirements; and
d) an ecological and connection strategy for the Tirle Brook including
geomorphological factors, fish, riparian habitats and Otters.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ECOP thereafter
unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
14) Prior to the commencement of development of each phase (or part phase) of
development identified in the phasing plan (Condition 7) a Green Infrastructure and
Biodiversity delivery scheme for that phase shall be submitted to and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The delivery scheme shall be in general
accordance with the strategy as set out in Chapter 4 (Ecology) of the Environmental
Statement, the Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan (ref.H.0543.04 rev.K) the
revised Landscape Mitigation Plan (ref. ref.18095.002 Rev.D) and the ECOP
(Condition 13), and shall include, but not exclusively, the following:
a) risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;

b) identification of “biodiversity protection zones” and their purpose/function;
c) updated ecological survey’s and assessments where required;
d) 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);
e) the locations and timing of works to avoid harm to biodiversity features and
provide effective mitigation and enhancement;
f) the times during construction when specialist ecological or environmental
practitioners need to be present on site to oversee works;
g) responsible persons and lines of communication;
h) the role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works or similar
person;
i) use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs; and
j) detailed ecological enhancement implementation measures relevant to the pre
development ecological site characteristics and opportunities
Development for that phase (or part phase) shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved delivery scheme thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the
Local Planning Authority.
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
15) No dwelling in any given phase pursuant to Condition 7 shall be occupied until a
Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for that phase has been
submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The LEMP
for each phase shall, but not exclusively, include the following:
a) description and evaluation of features to be managed in relation to the open

spaces defined in the Environmental Statement, the ECOP (Condition 13) and
Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity delivery scheme appropriate to the
phase;
b) ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management;
c) aims and objectives of management including, but not exclusively, those in
relation to farmland birds, amphibians, reptiles and bats;
d) appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives including
appropriate enhancement measures;
e) prescriptions for management actions;
f) preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of
being rolled forward over a five-year period);
g) details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan;
and
h) ongoing monitoring and remedial measures
The LEMP shall also identify the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-
term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the
management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out
(where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of
the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be
identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully
functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved
plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details
16) Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, in each phase (Condition 7), a lighting
scheme demonstrating that strategic dark corridors safeguarding in accordance with
the ECOP (Condition 13) is achieved shall be agreed in writing with the LPA and
thereafter development carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Access and layout
17) Notwithstanding Condition 1, the vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access points and
associated link road and pedestrian crossing points as shown on drawing no.
H556/11 Rev C shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans before
any building hereby permitted is first occupied.
18) Notwithstanding the approved plans and Condition 17 above, the southern access
arm of roundabout R1 as shown on drawing No. H556/11 Rev C shall be constructed
in accordance with revised details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
19) Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, the works
to improve the Northway Lane / Fiddington Lane junction with the A46 as generally
shown on PFA Drawing No. H556/15 Rev A (subject to detailed design and road
safety audit) shall be complete and open to traffic.
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
20) Prior to the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved, the
works to improve the Alexandra Way junction with the A46 as generally shown on
PFA Drawing No. H556/14 Rev A (subject to detailed design and road safety audit)
shall be complete and open to traffic.
21) No above ground works comprising the erection of a building shall commence on site
until a scheme has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, for the provision of fire hydrants (served by mains water supply) and no
dwelling shall be occupied until the hydrant serving that property has been provided
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
22) Notwithstanding the approved plans no more than 300 dwellings shall be occupied
until a bus/emergency access has been provided to Fiddington Lane in accordance
with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
23) The details to be submitted for the approval of reserved matters for each phase (or
part phase) of development pursuant to Condition 1 shall include vehicular parking
and turning and loading/ unloading facilities within the phase (or part phase).
Thereafter, no building hereby approved shall be occupied until those facilities and
carriageways (including surface water drainage/disposal and street lighting) serving
that building and providing access from the nearest public highway to that building
have been completed to at least binder course level and the footways to surface
course level. The facilities shall be maintained available for those purposes for the
duration of the development.
Strategic highway mitigation
24) Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, the works
to improve M5 junction 9 as generally shown on PFA Drawing No. H556/12 Rev D
(subject to detailed design and road safety audit) shall be complete and open to
traffic.
25) Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, a scheme
to widen the A438 exit from M5 Junction 9 as generally shown on PFA Drawing No.
H556/12 Rev D (subject to detailed design and road safety audit) shall be complete
and open to traffic.
Street maintenance
26) The reserved matters application for each phase submitted pursuant to Condition 1
shall include details of the proposed arrangements for future management and
maintenance of the proposed streets within that phase or part of a phase. The
streets shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved
details until such time as either a dedication agreement has been entered into or a
private management and maintenance company has been established for each
phase or part of a phase.
Construction
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
27) No development shall take place in a phase or part of a phase, including any works
of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement which accords with the Green
Infrastructure and Biodiversity Delivery Scheme for that phase has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for that phase or part of a
phase. The document shall contain details for community engagement measures and
to control the following:
a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

b) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
d) wheel washing facilities;
e) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;
f) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and
construction works; and
g) details of the site access/routeing strategy/signage during the construction
period.
h) hours of working;
i) site boundaries/hoardings;
j) site activities;
k) Construction Traffic:
i.volumes;
ii.routes;
iii.holding areas;
iv.parking;
v.cleaning;
l) oversize loads;
m) temporary fuel storage.
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the

construction period for the development.
Levels
28) The reserved matters application for each phase or part of a phase that includes
buildings submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall include details of existing and
proposed ground levels and ground floor slab levels relative to Ordnance Datum of
the buildings within that phase or part of a phase or part of a phase. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
29) Notwithstanding the approved plans/details, a detailed surface water drainage

strategy for the entire development hereby approved shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to, or accompanying, the
first reserved matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1. All subsequent
reserved matters submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall incorporate the approved
surface water drainage strategy and the development shall be carried out only in
accordance with the approved surface water drainage strategy.The details shall be
based on the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy (Revision A, dated
February 2017), as amended by drawing 256-220-C ‘Drainage Strategy (Appendix O
of the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy), included within the
Environmental Statement. The submitted details shall:
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
a) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method
employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site,
details of existing and proposed overland flow routes, and the measures taken
to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
b) provide details of compensatory pluvial flood storage capacity within the site;
c) provide details of any necessary easements;
d) provide a health and safety risk assessment for the attenuation ponds and
incorporate any recommended safety measures;
e) include details of the phasing for its implementation;
f) 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.
30) No building hereby permitted within each phase or part of a phase of the
development, as defined under Condition 29 section e) above, shall be occupied until
surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details
that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority, as part of the reserved matters applications for that phase or part of a
phase.
31) No development approved by this permission for a phase or part of a phase within
the floodplain, as defined by the 1:100 + 35% climate change flood extent as shown
on drawing 256-230 ‘Tirle Brook Modelling 2016’ (Appendix K of the Flood Risk
Assessment & Drainage Strategy), shall be commenced until a scheme for the
provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works, based on the
details submitted to the Environment Agency on 22nd February 2018, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that phase
or part of a phase. The scheme shall include details of any phasing of the approved
works and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and
details.
32) No development shall be put in to use/occupied until a SUDS maintenance plan for
all SuDS/attenuation features and associated pipework has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved SUDS
maintenance plan shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed plan.
33) There must be no new buildings, structures (including gates, walls and fences) or
raised ground levels within 8 metres of the top of any bank of any watercourses,
inside or along the boundary of the site, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the
34) Floor levels should be set at a minimum of 600mm above the appropriate modelled
1% flood level including a 35% allowance for climate change as set out on Page 21
of Appendix K of the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy (Revision A, dated
February 2017).
Noise
35) Any reserved matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1 including non-
residential buildings shall include details of any extraction, ventilation, cooling and
refrigeration equipment to be installed on or in any building. The rated noise level
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
from any extraction, ventilation, cooling and refrigeration equipment to be installed

within the application site shall be no more than 5dB LAeq above the night-time
background noise level measured at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. The
method of assessment shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014: Rating
industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas (or other document
which may replace or modify the method of assessment). All approved equipment
shall be installed in accordance with the approved details on or in the building prior
to occupation and shall thereafter be operated and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions.
36) Noise levels within the dwellings hereby approved shall not exceed those set out in
BS4142:2014 “Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings”. Noise levels
measured from enclosed outdoor private amenity areas (gardens) should attain the
50dB(A) desirable criteria (Considered by WRS to be the LOAEL) and not exceed the
upper limit recommended within BS4142:2014 being 55dB(A) (Considered by WRS
to be the SOAEL)**.
To verify the above requirements for each phase (or part phase) each reserved
matters application submitted pursuant to Condition 1 which includes any dwellings
shall be accompanied by a noise survey to identify any dwellings that would be at
risk of exceeding the LOAEL.
The noise survey shall identify those measures necessary to achieve this
performance at the affected properties, and such measures shall be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works above slab level on the
identified plots.
The mitigation measures so approved shall be completed prior to any dwellings to

which they relate being first occupied and post completion testing to verify that the
noise level requirements of this condition have been met shall be carried out at
sample locations to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority before any of the
dwellings hereby approved are first occupied.
If the post completion testing shows that the limits set out in BS4142:2014 are
exceeded within dwellings and/ or the upper limit of 55dB(A) is exceeded when
measured from enclosed outdoor amenity areas, details of further mitigation to bring
noise levels down to the required limits shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority and the proposed further mitigation shall be
carried out before the dwellings to which these measures relate are first occupied.
** Section 3 WRS Application to Support NPSE Aims – Worcestershire Regulatory

Services Noise Technical Guide 2nd edition 2015.
Sustainable travel
37) The approved Residential Travel Plan, H556-DOC07 TP Issue 2, dated 30 May 2018,
shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details and timetable therein
(except for the developer to take on the role of co-ordinator and providing funding),
and shall be continued thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning
Authority.
38) Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, appropriate cabling and an
outside electrical socket must be supplied for that dwelling to enable ease of
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
installation of an electric vehicle charging point (houses with dedicated parking). For
those parts of the development with unallocated parking i.e. flats/apartments 1 EV
charging point per 10 spaces (as a minimum) should be provided to be operational
at first occupation of the relevant dwelling. The charging point must comply with
BS7671. The socket should comply with BS1363, and must be provided with a
locking weatherproof cover if located externally to the building.
39) Electric charging points shall be installed in 10% (minimum) of the allocated parking
spaces at the development. This may be phased with 5% of spaces operational
initially and a further 5% made EV charging ready (i.e. incorporating appropriate
cabling) to allow additional provision to meet future demand. The charging points
shall comply with BS7671 and the sockets with BS 1363 which must be provided
with a locking weatherproof cover if located externally to the building.
40) Applications submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall include details for secure cycle
parking facilities. The details shall include the location, type of rack, spacing,
numbers, method of installation and access to cycle parking. The approved cycle
parking measures shall be fully installed prior to the first occupation of the building
to which it relates.
Contamination
41) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved
development that was not previously identified it shall be reported in writing
immediately to the local planning authority. An investigation and risk assessment
shall be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme shall
be prepared in accordance with requirement, which shall be subject to the approval
in writing of the local planning authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a

verification report shall be prepared, which shall be subject to the approval in writing
of the local planning authority.
Housing mix
42) The first reserved matters application for any given phase (or part phase) submitted
pursuant to Condition 1 shall include the submission of a Housing Mix Statement to
the Local Planning Authority for its written approval setting out, in respect of that
phase, how an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures will be provided
in order to contribute to a mixed and balanced housing market to 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 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 for that phase (or part phase).
Approved plans
43) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans unless other conditions in this planning permission specify
otherwise:-
a) Site Location Plan ref. FN.00.003 rev. D
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
b) Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan ref.H.0543.04 rev. K

c) Land Use Parameter Plan ref. H.0543.05 rev. J
d) Access and Movement Parameter Plan ref. H.0543.06 rev. P
e) Building Heights Parameter Plan ref.H.0543.07 rev. H
f) Plan Showing Primary Access Arrangements ref.H556/11 rev. C
g) Proposed Improvements to M5 Junction 9 ref.H556/12 rev. D
h) Western Access ref.H556/14 rev.A
i) Eastern Access ref. H556/15 rev.A
j) Landscape Mitigation Strategy Plan ref. 18095.002 rev.D
k) Drainage Strategy Drawing ref. 256-220 rev. C
****End of Conditions****
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Miss S Reid of Counsel instructed by the Borough Solicitor
Affordable housing, planning conditions and 106:

P Smith MRTPI Sole planning practitioner
C Ashby MRTPI Development Management Team Leader
M Barker MRTPI Planning Policy Manager (Housing)
G Spence Planning solicitor
FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr A Crean QC, instructed by Mr D Hutchinson, Pegasus Planning
He called
D Hutchinson Planning consultant, Pegasus Group
BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
Affordable housing, discussion on planning conditions and s106:
Andrew Hill Land and Planning Director at Robert Hitchins
Limited
Robyn Evans Robert Hitchins Limited Legal Department
Peter Finlayson, Chairman of PFA Consulting Ltd
INTERESTED PERSON:
J Hargreaves Ashchurch Rural Parish Council
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
1 Appellant’s note on Traffic Calming Measures on Fiddington Lane
2 CIL Compliance Statement – Libraries and education
3 CIL Compliance Statement – affordable housing, play facilities, community
facilities
4 Appellant’s note on Aston Cross Junction Improvement
5 Correspondence regarding Mitigation Works Fund
6 Council’s opening and closing submissions
7 Appellant’s closing submissions
8 Planning Obligation dated 14 June 2019 related to Education and Highways
9 Planning Obligation dated 14 June 2019 related to Affordable Housing
10 Planning Obligation dated 14 June 2019 related to Highways and
Transportation
11 Planning Obligation dated 14 June 2019 related to Open Space and
Communities
12 Planning Obligation dated 14 June 2019 related to Highways Mitigation
13 Statement of Common Ground with Ashchurch Rural Parish Council
14 Statement of Common Ground (Planning)
15 Statement of Common Ground (Highways)
CORE DOCUMENTS
Planning Application
A1 A1 Covering Letter to LPA, dated 12th May 2017
A2 A2 Application Forms (including relevant Certificate of Ownership and
Agricultural Holdings Declarations), dated 12th May 2017
A3 Affordable Housing Statement, dated 8th March 2017, prepared by Pioneer
Property Services Ltd
A4 Built Heritage Statement (included within Environmental Statement Part 4,
Chapter 8), dated December 2016, prepared by RPS CgMs
A5 Design and Access Statement, dated April 2017, doc ref: H.0543_11,
prepared by Pegasus Design
A6 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (included within the
Environmental Statement Part 4, Chapter 1), dated February 2017, prepared
by Phoenix Design; and later supplemented by updated Drainage Strategy
dwg ref. 256-220 rev. C, Flood Compensation Banding and Link Road Flood
Compensation Summary submitted February 2018
A7 Planning Statement (including Draft Heads of Terms), dated May 2017,
prepared by RPS CgMs
A8 Residential Travel Plan, dated April 2017, Issue 1, prepared by PFA
Consulting
A9 Sustainability Statement, dated March 2017, prepared by RPS CgMs
A10 Statement of Community Involvement, dated April 2017, prepared by RPS
CgMs
A11 Transport Assessment – Main Text, dated April 2017, Issue 1, prepared by
PFA Consulting
A12 Transport Assessment – Figures, dated April 2017, Issue 1, prepared by PFA
Consulting
A13 Transport Assessment – Appendices, dated April 2017, Issue 1, prepared by
PFA Consulting
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
A14 Utilities Statement, dated May 2017, Rev B, prepared by Robert Hitchins
Limited
A15 Waste Minimisation Statement, dated March 2017, Rev 1, prepared by WSP
A16 Email dated 22nd February 2018 from Phoenix Design attaching an update
to the Drainage Strategy, drawing ref. 256-220 Rev C, prepared by Phoenix
Design and accompanying details concerning: i. Flood Compensation
Banding details; and ii. Link Road Flood Compensation Summary
Drawings
A17 Site Location Plan – drawing ref: FN.00.003.D
A18 Illustrative Masterplan – drawing ref: H.0543.02M
A19 Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan – drawing ref: H.0543.04K
A20 Land Use Parameter Plan – drawing ref: H.0543.05.J
A21 Access and Movement Plan – drawing ref: H.0543.06.P
A22 Building Heights Parameter Plan – drawing ref: H.0543.07.H
A23 Western Access – drawing ref: H556/14 A24 Eastern Access – drawing ref:
H556/15
Environmental Statement
A25 Environmental Statement Part 1 – Non-Technical Summary, dated May 2017
A26 Environmental Statement Part 2 – Project Information, dated May 2017
A27 Environmental Statement Part 3 – Reports, dated May 2017
A28 Environmental Statement Part 4 – Figures and Appendices, dated May 2017
A29 Environmental Statement Addendum, dated May 2019, prepared by Pegasus
Group
A30 Environmental Statement Addendum – Non-Technical Summary, dated May
2019, prepared by Pegasus Group
Committee Report
A31 Officer Report to Planning Committee, dated 18th December 2018
A32 Minutes of the 18th December 2018 Planning Committee meeting
Correspondence with LPA
A33 Letter from LPA issuing a Notice under Article 5(2) of the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
requiring details of Access to be included in the application as a Reserved
Matter, dated 9th May 2017
A34 Email from RPS CgMs to the LPA submitting an amended Site Location Plan,
dated 20th June 2017
A35 Email from RPS CgMs to the LPA submitting plans showing Access Details,
dated 6th July 2017
A36 Email correspondence between the LPA and RPS CgMs regarding the
description of development and the withdrawal of the Article 5(2) Notice,
dated 21st July 2017
A37 Email correspondence between the LPA and RPS CgMs regarding agreement
to extending the determination period of the application by two weeks,
dated 26th July 2017
A38 Letter from the LPA confirming validation of the planning application, dated
26th July 2017
A39 Email correspondence between Phoenix Design and the LPA regarding the
submission of additional drainage details in response to comments from the
Environment Agency, dated 22nd February 2018
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
A40 Email correspondence between the LPA and RPS CgMs regarding agreement
to extending the determination period of the application until 30th April
2018, dated 29th March 2018
Consultation Responses
A41 Ashchurch Rural Parish Council, dated 25th August 2017 and 26th August
2017
A42 Environment Agency, dated 10th October 2017 and 23rd April 2018
A43 Ecological Officer, dated 26th October 2017 and 4th May 2018
A44 Environmental Health Officer, dated 1st December 2017
A45 Highways England, dated 31st August 2017, 16th February 2018, 22nd May
2018, 22nd December 2018 and 16th April 2019
A46 Highways Officer, dated 25th October 2018 and 7th May 2019
A47 Housing Strategy Officer, dated 22nd November 2017
A48 Landscape Officer, dated 3rd May 2018
A49 Lead Local Flood Authority, dated 6th September 2017
A50 Minerals and Waste Officer, dated 31st August 2017
A51 Natural England, dated 1st September 2017
A52 Planning Policy Officer, undated
A53 Public Rights of Way Officer, dated 5th October 2018
A54 A54S106 Officer, dated 17th May 2018
A55 Severn Trent, dated 17th August 2017
A56 Stoke Orchard & Tredington Parish Council, both undated
A57 Tewkesbury Town Council, undated A58 Urban Design Officer, dated 22nd
September 2017
A58 Urban Design Officer, dated 22nd September 2017
A59 Wales & West Utilities, both undated
A60 Wychavon District Council, undated
Appeal administration
B1 Planning Appeal Form, dated 6th September 2018
B2 Bespoke Timetable Statements of Case
B3 Appellant Pre Inquiry Statement of Case, dated 6th September 2018
B4 Tewkesbury Borough Council Rule 6 Statement, undated Draft Planning
Obligation
B5 Draft S106 Documentation: a) Affordable Housing S106 which has been
agreed with Tewkesbury Borough Council; b) Public Open Space Unilateral
Undertaking which is currently being negotiated with Tewkesbury Borough
Council; c) Annex 2 of the Public Open Space Unilateral Undertaking; d)
Education/Libraries S106 which is currently being negotiated with
Gloucestershire County Council; e) Illustrative Masterplan to be attached to
the Education/Libraries S106 f) Highways/Transport S106 which is currently
being negotiated with Gloucestershire County Council; g) S106 Plan to be
attached to all documents h) Plan showing the land ownership to be
attached to all documents Statements of Common Ground
B6 Draft Statement of Common Ground, dated 10th August 2018
B7 Agreed Statement of Common Ground with Highways England, Version 4,
dated 16th April 2019
B8 Agreed Statement of Common Ground with Ashchurch Rural Parish Council,
dated 29th and 30th April 2019
B9 Agreed Planning Statement of Common Ground
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
B10 Agreed Housing Land Supply Statement of Common Ground

B11 Agreed Highways Statement of Common Ground with Tewkesbury Borough
Council
National Planning Policy and Guidance

C1 National Planning Policy Framework 2 (Revised February 2019
C2 National Planning Practice Guide
Local Planning Policy and Guidance

D1 Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031,
adopted December 2017
D2 Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy – Inspectors
Final Report on the Examination, dated 26th October 2017
D3 Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy – Inspectors
Interim Report on the Examination, dated 26th May 2016
D4 Joint Core Strategy Review – Issues and Options Consultation, dated
October 2018
D5 Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 Preferred Options Consultation, dated
October 2018
D6 Tewkesbury Borough Council Local Development Scheme – Note for the
Inspector, dated 9th June 2015
D7 Tewkesbury Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Charging
Schedule – adopted October 2018
D8 Tewkesbury Area Draft Concept Masterplan – Concept Masterplan Report,
dated January 2018, prepared by BDP on behalf of Tewkesbury Borough
Council
D9 Ashchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan – Regulation 14 Draft 2016
D10 Representations on behalf of the Appellant to the Tewkesbury Area Draft
Concept Masterplan, dated January 2019, prepared by Pegasus Group
D11 Tewkesbury Local Plan to 2011 (Adopted March 2006), Policy RCN1 –
Outdoor Playing Space
D12 Additional Strategic Sites Report, Addendum to the Plan viability,
Community Infrastructure Levy and affordable housing study, Gloucester,
Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy, report prepared by PBA on
behalf of the JCS Authorities, dated September 2016
D13 MHCLG Garden Towns Press Release, dated 25th March 2019
D14 Report to Tewkesbury Borough Council full council committee meeting –
Garden Community Programme (Garden Town Status for Tewkesbury at
Ashchurch), dated 28th May 2019
Housing Needs and Land Supply

E1 MHCLG Technical Consultation on Updates to National Planning Policy and
Guidance, dated October 2018.
E2 South Worcestershire Development Plan, adopted February 2016
E3 South Worcestershire Development Plan Review – Issues and Options
Consultation, dated November 2018
E4 Extracts from Appendix 2 (Detailed Trajectory Workbook) of the Gloucester,
Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Housing Implementation
Strategy, dated January 2017
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
E5 Bredon Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2030, dated July 2017 E6

Tewkesbury Borough Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement, dated
March 2019
Transport
F1 Plan Showing Primary Access Arrangements – drawing ref: H556/11 Rev C
F2 Application Plan Western Access – drawing ref: H556/14 Rev A
F3 Application Plan Eastern Access – drawing ref: H556/15 Rev A
F4 Proposed Improvements to M5 Junction 9 – drawing ref: H556/12 Rev D
F5 Residential Travel Plan (Issue 2), dated May 2018, prepared by PFA
Consulting
F6 Ashchurch S-Paramics Traffic Model 2016 Revalidation Report (Issue 3),
dated February 2018, prepared by PFA Consulting
F7 Ashchurch S-Paramics Traffic Model Forecasting Report, dated March 2019,
prepared by PFA Consulting
F8 Walking, Cycling & Horse-Riding Assessment Report, dated June 2018,
prepared by PFA Consulting
F9 Junction Capacity Assessment Report, dated March 2019, prepared by PFA
Consulting
F10 Local Highway Network Impact Assessment – S-Paramics Modelled Queue
Lengths and Link Times, dated August 2018, prepared by PFA Consulting
F11 DfT Circular 02/2013 – The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of
Sustainable Development
F12 The Strategic Road Network: Planning for the Future, dated September
2015, published by Highways England
Landscape, Urban Design & Masterplanning

G1 Creating Successful Masterplans: A guide for clients, dated 2004, published
by CABE
G2 Garden Communities, dated August 2018, published by MHCLG
Relevant appeal decisions and legal judgements

H1 Appeal decision APP/P0240/W/17/3190584 – 59 Shefford Road, Meppershall
Shefford, dated 22nd May 2018
H2 High Court Judgement CO/4792/2014 – Phides Estates (Overseas) Limited
vs SoS for DCLG, Shepway District Council and David Plumstead, dated 26th
March 2015
H3 Court of Appeal Judgement C1/2015/0583 and C1/2015/0894 – Suffolk
Coastal District Council vs Hopkins Homes Limited and SoS for DCLG and
Richborough Estates Partnership LLP vs Cheshire East Borough Council and
SoS for DCLG, dated 17th March 2016
H4 SoS Appeal Decision APP/G1630/W/3184272 – Land South of Oakridge,
Highnam, Gloucestershire, dated 20th December 2018
H5 SoS Appeal decision APP/K3415/A/14/2224354 – Land and Buildings off
Watery Lane, Curborough, Lichfield, dated 13th February 2017
H6 High Court Judgement CO/1429/2017 – Lichfield District Council vs SoS for
DCLG, dated 28th July 2017
H7 Appeal Decision APP/G1630/W/17/3175559 – Land off Ashmead Drive,
Gotherington, dated 27th April 2018
H8 Appeal Decision APP/G1630/W/17/3171926 – Land off Kidderminster Road,
Winchcombe, dated 5th October 2017
Report APP/G1630/W/18/3210903
H9 Appeal Decision, APP/G1630/W/17/3174525 - Land to the North of 15

Bloxhams Orchard, Ashleworth, dated 23rd August 2017
H10 Appeal Decision, APP/G1630/W/17/3167141 – Land at Trumans Farm,
Gotherington, dated 15th August 2017
H11 Appeal Decision, APP/G1630/W/16/3165534 – Land rear of Dormans, Mill
Lane, Prestbury, dated 15th August 2017
H12 SoS Appeal Decision APP/G1630/W/16/3164033 – Land at Innsworth,
Innsworth Lane, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, dated 21st December 2017
H13 SoS Appeal Decision APP/G1630/W/16/3154464 – Land at Twigworth,
Gloucester, Gloucestershire, dated 21st December 2017
H14 SoS Appeal Decision APP/J0405/V/16/3151297 – Land West of Castlemilk,
Moreton Road, Buckingham, dated 19th July 2017
H15 Appeal Decision, APP/Z2830/W/18/3206346 – Land South of Kislingbury
Road, Rothersthorpe, dated 17th May 2019
www.gov.uk/mhclg
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the
legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or
making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or
contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division,
Strand,London,WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of
State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only
if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow
that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court
under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act

With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in
applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may
be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on
the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have
not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must
be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act

Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289
of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the
Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission.
Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days
of the decision, unless the Court extends this period.
SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS
A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a
decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if
permission of the High Court is granted.
SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision
has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the
Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If
you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at
the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter,
quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice
should be given, if possible.

CALA Homes Appeal Statement of Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALA Homes Appeal Statement of Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALA Homes Appeal Statement of Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statement of Case

Produced by Bruton Knowles

Statement of Case for

Prepared Bruton Knowles

BK Contacts: David Smart MRTPI T: 01452 880000

Verity Wood T: 01452 880000

Prepared CALA Homes (Midlands) Limited

2 The Appeal Site 3

3 The Appeal Development 5

4 Relevant Policy and Legislation 6

6 The Tilted Planning Balance 25

Appendix A: Decision Notice for Application no. 19/00772/FUL

Statement of Case Page 1

1.4. The proposal constitutes “Phase 2” of this development.

Statement of Case Page 2

(Application site edged in red. For indicative purposes only)

Statement of Case Page 3

Statement of Case Page 4

Statement of Case Page 5

Local Policy: Development Plan Policy

“Given the numerous conflicting interests that Development Plans seek to

Joint Core Strategy (JCS) (2017)

Statement of Case Page 6

Statement of Case Page 7

Statement of Case Page 8

Statement of Case Page 9

Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011

Statement of Case Page 10

Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan (July 2018)

Statement of Case Page 11

1. Submitting a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment to enable their impact on the

1. Provide onsite parking at a minimum rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling; or

National Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Statement of Case Page 12

Statement of Case Page 13

Statement of Case Page 14

Statement of Case Page 15

Statement of Case Page 16

Statement of Case Page 17

Statement of Case Page 18

Statement of Case Page 19

Statement of Case Page 20

5.23. Market housing

% required in SHMA % provided by development

Statement of Case Page 21

Statement of Case Page 22

Statement of Case Page 23

Statement of Case Page 24

The Economic Objective

The Social Objective

Statement of Case Page 25

The Environmental Objective

Statement of Case Page 26

Statement of Case Page 27

Statement of Case Page 28

REFUSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT

Application number: 19/00772/FUL Date application valid: 6th September 2019

Proposal: Residential development up to 28 units, including means of access and landscaping.

Statement of Positive and Proactive Engagement