Client
Robert Hitchins Ltd
Size
Up to 95 dwellings
Sectors
Residential
Council
Tewkesbury Borough Council
Key Project Information
Permission was granted at appeal for up to 95 dwellings and associated infrastructure.
Our planning and economics areas of expertise were instructed to represent the appellant at the appeal on planning, educational and housing land supply matters.
The story
Following the failure of the Council to determine a planning application for up to 150 dwellings, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping, a s78 appeal was lodged. The Council then resolved that they would have refused planning permission if they remained the determining authority identifying 8 reasons for refusal on planning, design, ecological, and flood risk, grounds as well as the absence of an agreed s106.
Pegasus Group were instructed to represent the appellant at appeal on planning, educational and housing land supply matters.
In order to respond positively to the ecological concerns, the scale of development was amended to provide up to 95 dwellings. The Inspector accepted this amendment and determined the appeal on this basis.
Having agreed with the Council that a five-year land supply was unable to be demonstrated, our economics area of expertise presented evidence that there was a substantial shortfall of housing across the plan period and no plan-led mechanism to address this which could be afforded any weight.
In the context of these findings, the Inspector found that the planning balance was almost entirely one-sided and therefore allowed the appeal.
The need for contributions towards education
The County Council presented evidence to the inquiry that £1.54M worth of contributions towards additional primary school places was necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, on the basis that all of the primary school pupils would attend the closest school, that it was necessary to ensure that 5% of school places were kept unoccupied and that each dwelling would generate twice as many pupils as suggested during the course of the examination of the Joint Core Strategy.
Pegasus Group presented evidence which demonstrated that pupils could attend the second closest primary school which had more than sufficient capacity, that it was not necessary to ensure that 5% of places were unoccupied, and that the pupil yields assumed by the County Council were unjustifiable by reference to any comparator.
The Inspector agreed with Pegasus Group on each of these issues and accordingly found that no contributions towards additional primary school places were necessary.
