Agenda item

To consider options for the Council’s approach to the appeal.

Officers opened agenda item 9 explaining the purpose of bringing the report to Committee – which focused primarily on the refusal reasons, the council’s case at Inquiry, exposure to costs and legal advice received on these matters. Five options were set out in the officer report to Committee considering a range of approaches on how the 9 refusal reasons could be dealt with at the forthcoming Inquiry.  The 9 refusal reasons (in summary) were:

1.         Grant of permission premature to the finalisation of the Joint Core Strategy

2.         Proposal of 650 new homes forms part of a larger allocation for 1,124.  Unclear whether scheme would deliver comprehensive development

3.         Premature in advance of council consideration to designate sites as local green space

4.         Proposed development would significantly and adversely add to existing traffic congestion on the A46, wider roads and junctions

5.         Proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape and the adjoining AONB

6.         Loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land

7.         Inconclusive evidence on flood risk

8.         Impact of retail proposed on district centres of Hatherley and Bath Road

9.         No Section 106 agreement completed to secure payment of the commuted sums to deliver adequate infrastructure.

Members outlined their concerns in regards to the details of the scheme, the context of the application within the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy and the examination into this plan; and the relationship of the site with adjacent land being considered for development by Tewkesbury Borough Council.

Members discussed the 9 refusal reasons; particular focus was upon prematurity in advance of the Joint Core Strategy, comprehensive development, traffic and landscape implications and context of local green space.  The Committee considered the legal advice in respect of these issues and discussed with officers the implications in the context of the council’s case at the Inquiry.

Members discussed the likely extent of costs; including the council’s own costs and those which may be awarded against the council. The budget available to defend the council’s case was discussed; it was noted that if significant costs were awarded against the council then the budget currently available would be insufficient.

A member proposed a substantive motion to pursue option 4 in the report – to progress Refusal Reasons 4 (highways) and 5 (AONB), with Refusal Reason 9 (S106) added.  Members debated the motion and a number of amendments were proposed which included the incorporation of refusal reasons 1, 2 and 3.  The amendments were not carried.

Following the votes on amendments, the substantive motion was taken which was carried - 13 in support, 2 in objection.

Officers were tasked with contacting the appellants to set out the refusal reasons the council intended to pursue at the Inquiry.

Resolved to direct officers that  refusal reasons 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of decision 13/01605/OUT should not be pursued in respect of the appeal lodged in respect of that decision, but should continue to pursue and submit evidence in respect of refusal reasons 4, 5 and 9 (noting that refusal reason 9 may be satisfactorily resolved via the provision of a planning obligation)

The Planning Committee meeting ended at 9.50pm following approximately 2.5 hours debate on agenda items 8 and 9.