Two dwellings at Highbanks, The Street, Stowey, Bristol

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for two dwellings after demolishing an existing detached annex.

“REPORT The application refers to a parcel of residential land within the garden of the semi- detached property Highbanks. The application site is within the Green Belt.”

“Permission in Principle is sought for the erection of 2no dwellings following demolition of existing detached annex.”

Officer report

The officer assessment

Officers found the location unsustainable but considered the site potentially infill development, with the harm outweighed by the benefits.

“Permission in principle must not be granted for a development which is a Habitats Development. A Habitats Development is development is defined as a development which is likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European Site or an offshore marine site, referred to as a habitats site in the NPPF.”

“The application site is found to be unsustainable by location and is found contrary with policies ST1 and ST7 as a result. However, the site sits amongst existing residential housing. It is not isolated from other development and may be found to constitute infill development in accordance with Policy D7.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council did not object, while highways objected over sustainability and arboriculture raised a holding objection over missing tree surveys.

“Stowey Sutton Parish Council do not object to application 25/00872/PIP in its present form.”

“A holding Objection is raised due to the lack of tree surveys. It is highlighted that matures trees are on site and Tree Surveys will be required to ensure development can remain compliant with Policy NE6.”

Officer report

Objections received

Objections concerned sustainability, Green Belt status, housing numbers, access, visibility, vehicle movements, waste collection and the possible size of the homes.

“The objection comments are summarised into the following topics: - Unsustainable location and a lack of active travel options, - The site is not Grey Belt, - The increase in development will exceed that allowed in an infill development in the Green Belt…”

“1no objection has been received which has been summarised into the following points: - The settlement has already exceeded target number of new properties, hence development cannot be infill or meeting an unmet housing need, - Access to the properties would be via a single track access lane which serves 5 properties, - The single track access cannot support the potential new vehicle movements due to visibility, width and existing usage, - Bins and recycling will need to be…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two local residents objected, the agent supported the application and a ward councillor raised concerns about sustainability, amenities, transport and the Green Belt.

Committee debate

Members discussed the site’s unsustainability, Green Belt requirements, infill status, future detailed control and the need for housing.

“In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed: Officers had given limited weight to the use of delivery vehicles, as the site was accessible by smaller vans and delivery vehicles would currently be accessing the village. In terms of whether the site could be regarded as infill, it did meet some of the definitions, e.g., D7 of the Local Plan, but not others, e.g., the neighbourhood plan.”

“The site was in the green belt. It had not been redefined as grey belt due to its unsustainable location. If permission in principle was granted, a detailed application for the two dwellings would need to meet the conditions relating to openness of the green belt. If permission in principle was granted, there would still be an option to refuse a future planning application if details were not acceptable. 5.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to grant permission in principle was carried by nine votes to one.

“Cllr Halsall opened the debate and acknowledged that the site was unsustainable and that there was an objection from the highways authority but felt that the Committee needed to support the officer recommendation to grant permission in principle due to the lack of a 5-year land supply for housing.”

“Cllr Jackson concurred with this view and moved the officers recommendation to grant permission in principle. This was seconded by Cllr Warren.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was granted, subject to the conditions set out for the application.

“On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (9 in favour and 1 against).”

“RESOLVED that permission in principle be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

Minutes

Next stage

A technical details application must be submitted before development begins and within three years, or the permission will lapse.

“This decision relates to the following plans:”

“An application for Technical Details Consent must be made prior to commencement of development and no later than the expiration of three years from the date on this decision notice, after this period this Planning Permission in Principle shall lapse.”

Officer report