Robert Hitchins Ltd


Up to 120 dwellings and associated infrastructure.




Tewkesbury Borough Council

Key Project Information

Permission was granted at appeal for up to 120 dwellings and associated infrastructure.
Pegasus Group prepared numerous documents in support of the planning application including the Environmental Statement and Planning Statement as well as response to some of the statutory consultees.

Our planning and economics areas of expertise represented the appellant at the appeal.

The Story

Pegasus Group prepared numerous documents and engaged with statutory consultees in support of a planning application for up to 120 dwellings at Fiddington near Tewkesbury.

Following the failure of the Council to determine the planning application, a s78 appeal was lodged. The Council then resolved that the would have refused planning permission if they remained the determining authority contrary to the officer recommendation, identifying 8 putative reasons for refusal on planning, landscape, noise, railway safety and the absence of an agreed s106.

Pegasus Group were instructed to represent the appellant at appeal on planning, housing land supply and educational matters.

Prior to the inquiry convening, it was agreed between the parties that all of the putative reasons for refusal had been resolved, with the exception of railway safety which was addressed by Network Rail as a Rule 6 party.
The Inspector found that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to railway safety and allowed the appeal.

The need for contributions towards education

The County Council had originally requested £838k towards additional primary school places.
Pegasus Group reviewed this assessment and identified that the County Council had not taken account of the additional places to be provided at schools being delivered in the locality.

The County Council acknowledged this and agreed that no contributions towards educational infrastructure were required such that this was an uncontested matter at the appeal.

The Council resolved to permit the commercial space, but to refuse the residential development contrary to officer recommendation.

Following this resolution, the application was appealed on the grounds of non-determination.
Pegasus Group were instructed to represent the appellant at the appeal on heritage and educational matters and presented evidence to address these issues.

The Inspector agreed with both parties that the proposals would give rise to less than substantial harm which would be outweighed by the public benefits and found that the agreed contribution towards educational infrastructure was payable.

In light of these and other more substantive matters, the Inspector allowed the appeal in December 2023.
The need for contributions towards education

The County Council requested contributions totaling £859k towards educational infrastructure.

Pegasus Group responded identifying that the requested contribution had been miscalculated, and that it did not accord with the updated guidance of the DfE, such that contributions totaling £240k could be justified.

Prior to the exchange of evidence the Council approached Pegasus Group and both parties agreed to a contribution of £400k on a without prejudice basis such that this issue did not need to be determined by the Inspector.