Controversial plans for houses next to protected village green

Controversial plans to bulldoze a bungalow that can only be accessed via a single-track drive through the middle of a protected village green and replace it with two new homes have passed the first hurdle. South Gloucestershire councillors approved the redevelopment of a property called Little Croft “in principle” by 7-0 votes, with two abstentions, despite objections from Yate Town Council and 17 residents.

The town council owns the common, Goose Green, and has said it would allow only one of the two new buildings to have a right to vehicle access along the track, meaning the occupants of the other house would have to leave their cars on the narrow main road, worsening parking problems in the area. The application by Jerry Smallridge, whose brother used to live at the bungalow, is unusual because instead of applying for full or outline planning consent like the vast majority of cases, he instead asked for “permission in principle” (PiP) for up to two properties.

That meant the development management committee could only consider whether the site was suitable for them, with full “technical details” and designs to be decided at a future stage. Cabinet member for planning, regeneration and infrastructure Cllr Chris Willmore (Lib Dem, Yate North) told the committee: “There is something about Goose Green that is different from the rest of Yate.

“Goose Green is a quiet haven, it has trees and open space and it feels tranquil. It’s the only place in Yate where you get that feeling of what Yate was like before all the modern housing developments, and that is really special.

“Goose Green and Yate Rocks are two bits of Yate that I would fight to the death to conserve as they are because they are the visible sign of our history. This is a special place that requires special treatment.”

She said PiP was a “nonsense process” that did not allow councillors to include any conditions on giving the go-ahead at this stage. Cllr Willmore said: “The town council as landowner is saying, ‘I’m sorry but the most you will ever get from us on this piece of land is one dwelling’s worth of vehicles on this narrow width’.

Sign up to receive daily news updates and breaking news alerts straight to your inbox for free here.

“You will therefore be faced with an application to put two houses on the site where the vehicles would have to be parked on the road. If we start parking cars right down that road, you will destroy that character of the common that is so unique and so important for us to protect.”

Residents told the meeting on Thursday, October 24, that if the new buildings were two storeys, they would have a “massive overbearing impact” on adjacent homes and the “total loss of natural daylight to a neighbouring kitchen and a complete loss of privacy”. Planning agent Emma Jarvis, on behalf of Mr Smallridge, said the bungalow was in a poor state of disrepair and needed replacing and that the plot was 1,000sqm so was large enough for two homes.

She said various owners had used the single track access as a right of way without challenge for 55 years. South Gloucestershire Council development manager Marie Bath said: “At this stage we cannot attach conditions to this. It’s impossible.

“While officers are very sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbours, at this stage we cannot consider the means of construction, design, type and scale of the building, layout, number of parking spaces, landscaping, overlooking or overbearing because we simply don’t know what we are going to be considering at the technical details stage. We could be considering one two-bed bungalow, we could be considering two three-storey townhouses which clearly we could refuse at that stage, but this is for up to two dwellings only.

“We believe the site can accommodate two dwellings. When the application was initially submitted it was for up to three dwellings and the highways officer advice was that if there were three vehicles along this single lane, there would need to be a parking bay on the green.

“That would clearly be unacceptable, therefore it was reduced to up to two dwellings. The rights of access is a civil matter between the applicants and Yate Town Council which we can’t take into account as part of the planning process.

“We are at the PiP stage where all we are looking at is, in theory, could you get two houses of some unknown size and design on this site. If the answer to that is yes, the recommendation is for approval.”

She said the technical details stage would involve a new application that would go out to consultation and could come to committee for a final decision. Cllr Tony Williams (Lib Dem, Severn Vale) said: “I find it astounding that we cannot consider the access when we know one of the dwellings will not have access.”

Cllr June Bamford (Conservative, Hanham) said the developers were being “slightly greedy” and would pack in as much as they could onto the site. Committee chairman Cllr Tristan Clark (Lib Dem, Frampton Cotterell) said: “I find PiP applications frustrating because at this stage they are hard to pin down.

“It’s infuriating that we can’t even attach conditions or informatives.”