Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/00209/FUL
Location:	24 Horsefair Street, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of 3no. detached dwellings with garages and construction of private access drive following demolition of existing dwelling
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		31	Update Report:		Additional representation

 

MJC introduced the application as above, reminding Members that it was deferred in July to allow more information on badgers at the site to be collected.  The applicant has worked with the County Council to resolve access issues to Horsefair Street, and the County is now satisfied that this is safe.  The lay-out has changed slightly since the July report – it is looser, Plot 2 is re-orientated in the site, and Plot 3 altered to reduce the impact on No. 22 Horsefair Street.  The recommendation is to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Peter Lidgard, neighbour, in objection

Speaking as a former planning officer and executive chairman of an international charity, on behalf of neighbours, feels that Members had been seriously misled by the planning officer, in addition to valid concerns expressed by the Parish Council and local residents.  There are two contradictory plans: RM2B, which requires removal of the neighbour’s wisteria tree and wall (for which they would never give permission), and M348/03, which leaves the tree but moves the entrance road a metre east and would result in the probable demolition of No. 26 Horsefair Street, leaving an ugly gaping hole in the street scene.  The plans are incompatible; do Members know which one they are considering tonight?  Why do officers consider narrowing the street will make it safer? Lorries frequently mount the pavement as it is, and the proposed build-out will look like the pedestrian crossing on Cirencester Road, making it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.  Is the area of permeable block paving going to ensure no increase in surface water run-off from three large houses in place of the existing orchard?  There is no mention in the officer report that this site was highlighted as being at high flood risk by the Environment Agency – why?   Notes that the badger setts are to be protected, but why hasn’t the officer asked for a survey to ensure other protected species aren’t living on this site? And why has there been no historic assessment of the two cottages, clearly marked on the 1806 and 1810 maps in Cheltenham Library?  This is a conservation area, and the cottages should be protected, not butchered.  Anyone who walks or drives through the villages know how congested and dangerous Horsefair Street gets at certain times of day, and the proposal will make it worse.  Members should ignore the officer advice and reject the application.

 

 

Member debate:

MS:  in light of what Members have just heard, can officers comment on the flood risk and status of the cottages?

 

HM:  uses the street at least once a day and confirms that it is extremely difficult to negotiate.  Is not convinced that the build-out will improve the situation, with heavy lorries making deliveries to the Co-op on Church Piece.  This is also a key route for schoolchildren.  Is concerned about road safety here and would welcome officer comment.  Is also concerned about the demolition of No 24 Horsefair Street.  Looking up Horsefair Street from Lyefield Road West, the gable end of 24 is a prominent feature of the street, and there is nothing in the plans to indicate what it will look like when it is demolished.  The report states that the conservation officer would like more detail about this, but no condition is included; would like one added, if the application is approved.  Is delighted that this application has finally made it to Planning Committee; it has been concerning residents for two years, and hopes it will be concluded tonight.

 

SW:  noted the speaker’s comments about the  wall and tree.  Who do these belong to?

 

BF:  on Planning View, it was clear that to gain access to the site, an old wisteria would have to be removed.  Is it protected?

 

MJC, in response:

-       to MS, regarding flood risk:  the site is in Flood Zone 1, not considered to be particularly prone to flooding, though the differing levels within the site have implications:  the surrounding buildings and land are elevated, resulting in flooding implications for the lower land;

-       the Environment Agency doesn’t require a flood risk assessment for this site, but if the application is permitted, officers will recommend a suitable drainage system be put in place before the site is developed, to ensure surface water run-off on the site as good or better than at present – to replicated run-off on a greenfield site;

-       regarding the historic status of the cottage in the conservation area, it has not been sensitively treated over the years, with the additional of tile cladding and barge board.  There are elevation details of the site after demolition of the cottage, showing oblique views which tell Members what they need to know; they can make an informed judgement on that basis;

-       the comments in the report from the Conservation Officer were made in June; drawings which were missing then have since been produced;

-       to HM, a condition regarding the gable end is missing and should be added if Members are minded to grant consent, to ensure sensitive treatment;

-       to SW, regarding the wisteria, wall and access, this is an issue planners are faced with on a regular basis; it was thoroughly investigated in the summer, with County Council involvement.  The applicant was asked if all the land within the red line was in his ownership, which he confirmed.  As officers and the local planning authority, it isn’t for us to question that.  If the applicant has applied for planning permission for land not in his ownership, he won’t be able to implement it;

-       regarding the wisteria, the same applies; if the applicant doesn’t own it, he does not have the right to remove it.

 

BF:  estimates the wisteria to be 80 years old or more, and it would be a shame to lose it through this development.  It isn’t just a piece of wood; it is a beautiful specimen, and it is critical that access arrangements are sorted out before anything else.

 

PT:  as regards the site plan, where are the wall and the wisteria?

 

GB:  were on the right hand side as Members walked in on the site visit.

 

PB:  are there two plans, as the speaker said, or only one?  Members need to know how the access will work; this is a very busy road, and three additional houses will create extra traffic.  Will half a cottage have to be demolished to ensure access?  What is the value of these cottages in the conservation area?

 

AC:  the elevation appears to show a door opening straight onto the access road, without any pavement?  This would be very dangerous.

 

CN:  reinforces comments about access, the wisteria, and comments from GCC, which seem to be the key issue for this particular site.  Is uncomfortable with the proposed access arrangements. In view of Parish Council comments, has there been an environmental study?

 

SW:  accepts MJC’s comments about the land within the red line, but as the access is so critical, is concerned that the applicant will insist the land is his until the wisteria has been dug up and the wall knocked down – by which time it will be too late to save them.  Surely it’s possible to determine exactly what land belongs to the applicant, even if Members vote to approve subject to this information coming forward;   then, if the land required for access isn’t owned by the applicant, the scheme could not proceed.

 

MJC, in response:

-       to SW, this application is the same as any other, and if it transpires that the applicant doesn’t own the land he says he does, he won’t be able to implement any permission.  Issues such as this have to be resolved outside the planning system, with the landowner challenging the applicant.  The planning authority wouldn’t involve itself;

-       to HM, regarding road safety, Horsefair Street is a busy road, which is why the county council has been so detailed in considering the application.  Visibility is poor, and buildings abut the back of the footpath, which is why a build-out and demolition are considered necessary, so that cars can advance further down the road to see traffic coming the other way.  The County is satisfied that, subject to a build-out, visibility can be achieved.  Condition 11 requires the building and access road to be delivered before any other work on the site;

-       to AC, the door in question opens into a space used by vehicles, but is in a recess behind the retained flat roof extension – so not directly onto the road, but to a buffer area;

-       regarding the ecological value of the site, there is clearly an active badger sett on the perimeter, and it is well-treed.  All applications are screened by the Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records; if they are aware of any other species on the site, they will let the planning authority know, but have not responded to this application, suggesting no particular diversity;

-       to CN, regarding the wisteria, cannot give any more advice; the applicant has certified that he owns the land in the red line, and the planning authority cannot challenge that.

 

CN:  if the wisteria is owned by someone else who won’t allow its removal, would that be critical to allow suitable access?

 

MJC, in response:

-       the wisteria eats into the land which is needed to ensure access to the rear.  The applicant says this land is in his ownership.

 

CL, in response:

-       this appears to be a boundary dispute, not a matter for the Council.  It’s not unknown for someone to say he owns land that he doesn’t, and for the other person to take him to court, resulting in costs being awarded.  It is at applicant’s risk to do work to land not in his ownership as it could well lead to claims against him. 

-       understands that the wisteria needs to come down to ensure safe access, and if it turns out that the applicant is not the owner and the owner says no, the applicant cannot pursue his planning permission.

 

CN:  if Members agree to the proposal, the applicant has a dispute with the owner of the wisteria who  subsequently proves that it is his land, would the council also have a legal claim against the applicant for having claimed it was his land?

 

CL, in response:

-       in some parts of planning law as regards statements made in respect of notices, there are specific provisions as to making fraudulent statements, but this is not one.  An incorrect certificate statement can have consequences for an issued planning permission, but this  depends on the impact, for example, where it has been to hide the application; here it is obvious the application is known, given the apparent land dispute that is going on.

 

PT:  understood that it is being said that the Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records knows the environmental attributes of all sites and gardens, but this can’t be so.  In this garden, the badgers were not taken into account at first, so what about all the smaller species that might be eradicated in the lust for development?  Why are we bending over backwards to allow someone to demolish an old cottage?  It doesn’t make sense.  Please can we make sure that no-one and nothing is being harmed by this.  Living standards depend on what is all around us; journeys for school children will be more dangerous, delivery lorries making things more difficult.  There seems no sense to consider this as a planning application.  Cannot see we can do anything but refuse it.

 

SW:  is not comfortable with this application, but Members have to come up with some acceptable planning objections.  Was concerned about Condition 7, regarding wheel washing, loading and parking of vehicles etc,  with nothing to say that lorries must off-load on site – that they can’t park on Horsefair Street.  This must be strengthened to say no site vehicles can park on Horsefair Street, but only on the site.

 

AM:  there are a lot of questionable facts with this application.  Doesn’t like making decisions without knowing all the facts.  It would be better to defer the decision, check the facts, and bring this proposal back to committee at a later date, so that Members’ decision can be based on clear and tested facts.  Proposes deferral to the January meeting.

 

PB:  can officers comment on the age and value of the cottages in the conservation area?

 

KS:  had a number of concerns about this this application which have not been overcome by the debate so far.  In another location, the houses would be quite nice, but we need the right application in the right location – which this isn’t.  Is troubled that this road is never easy to drive along; the real world is different from the planning world, as demonstrated by the Cirencester Road garage site.  Is concerned about access, regarding the wisteria and ownership of land; all that officers have said is true but if this can’t be safely engineered, it isn’t a good thing to permit as Planning Committee. If the tree can’t be removed, what will happen?  Can it be TPO’d?  Is worried that County officers have told us that highways matters are all okay and officers say conditions can be used to ensure safety, but  this isn’t okay – this is a narrow street, much-used by the elderly and by children.  The property is clearly very old and has been unsympathetically modified – does this make it too onerous to determine its historic status?  What sort of message is that?  It could be put right and restored, but not if it is demolished.  Finds this irritating.  Regarding the badgers,  there will be three houses on quite a small site; will the new residents want badgers digging up their gardens?  We should ensure there is space for wildlife in our town.  Will vote against this proposal; it is not the right location for this development, will upset the neighbours, and will not be safe.

 

MS:  had reservations at the beginning of the debate.  Accepts the reasoning for AM’s move to defer, but considers we will face the same problems next month.  Therefore moves to refuse on CP7 (unacceptable erosion of green space), NE1 (regarding the habitat and ecology of the area) and BE1 (regarding development in a conservation area). Would also suggest the proposal is contrary to the NPPF.

 

HM:  to AC’s point about the door opening onto the roadway, MJC has said this will be flush with the extension, but someone leaving the house by this door will not be able to see if vehicles are coming until they have come right out of the site, which is not satisfactory.  Also, can the Tree Officer comment on whether the wisteria is classed as a tree or a bush?

 

BF:  whether the application is refused, deferred or permitted, the key issue is the access and ownership of the land.  Urges the applicant and neighbour to resolve that issue.

 

AC:  the longer he is on Planning Committee, the more he wonders what Gloucestershire Highways do for a living.  They said that the Cirencester Road development would be okay – but it isn’t.  Cannot see how this cottage can be demolished without vehicles parking on the road during the demolition.  The decision could be deferred, as suggested by AM, but personally will not change his mind.  Is not in favour of this scheme.  It should be refused.

 

MJC, in response:

-       to PT, the Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records works on tip-offs from members of the public, and cannot be aware of absolutely everything – although it is always a good place to start;

-       PT asked why officers are bending over backwards to permit this development, for which there is no real need – this is dangerous territory for Committee.  Members are well aware of the real need for housing and the lack of a five-year land supply.  The question of whether this is the right site for housing is what we are discussing today.  There is clearly a housing need, and it is the responsibility of the planning authority to ensure that land is used effectively and efficiently.  This was the officer position in considering this proposal;

-       to SW, regarding wheel washing and construction vehicles, restriction of the use of Horsefair Street is not achievable – it is a public highway, and it is not possible to stop people from parking there, as demonstrated at Cirencester Road.  Unless they are causing  a public nuisance, the local authority cannot deal with it or be that prescriptive in a planning condition.  It would be a struggle to monitor such a condition, and would not suggest changing it to refer to Horsefair Street;

-       to AM’s suggestion of deferral, it could be helpful for extra clarity if Members could specify what additional information they want officers to produce – just access, or other points as well?

-       to PB and KS, regarding the cottage age and status, this is well-addressed in the report, which recognises that the building has been dramatically altered.  It is in a conservation area, but important to note that it isn’t listed, locally indexed, or recognised as a positive building. Therefore it is difficult to say it has any distinct value in the conservation area;

-       the NPPF talks about supporting applications with appropriate documentation, but officers’ view is that an Historic Assessment this would be overly onerous in this case and unnecessary;

-       to MS’s move to to refuse, all the suggested policies are legitimate, but would use the NPPF with caution – the planning minister is saying planning authorities need to be more explicit about how they use the NPPF, so officers would need more to go on here.  Considers the suggested Local Plan policies will be enough to tailor a defendable case for refusal;

-       to AC and HM re access and safety, this is difficult to argue as advice from County Council is that access is safe.  It is the Members’ decision whether they want to refuse the application against the backing of the Council’s professional adviser;

-       regarding the wisteria, will ask the Trees Officer to comment.

 

CC, in response:

-       wisteria is a woody plant; trees are woody, but not all woody plants are trees.  Can be a grey area, but ultimately, wisteria is a climber, not a tree, and cannot be protected via a TPO;

-       however, the applicant would need the owner’s permission to cut it down.

 

MS:  regarding the cottages to be demolished, these aren’t protected or considered of any value in the Local Plan, but if they go, it will make a significant difference to the street scene.  Can this be fitted in with the refusal reasons in any way?  The site may be appropriate for development, but three houses is too many.

 

GB:  also has a concern that this application would be over-development of the site.

 

CH:  was trying not to speak, but one of MJC’s comments has caused him concern.  He implied that because the cottage has been ‘messed around with’, it is now of no value?  In the 1970s, there was a fad for Cotswold stone cladding on the outside of terraced houses.  Cladding can be removed, and the old cottage underneath restored.  Is concerned if the opposite view is being taken – if it is, we could have lost some nice streets, in Tivoli in particular where five or six houses were stone-clad.  If these had been demolished, the town would have lost some valuable properties.  Would like to hear the officer’s comment on that point.

 

HM:  regarding the door on the remaining part of the property, there is no Highways comment about that door either.  The front door should be on the front elevation, not the side.  Would like to see a revised plan if the proposal is deferred.

 

BF:  if Members vote on MS’s move to refuse, paragraph 56 of the NPPF would be appropriate here:  Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

 

KS:  wonders how officers reach their recommendations, which are sometimes ‘on balance’, and how they really feel about this particular proposal.  The property is old and officers are saying its value has gone because people have made it ugly, but surely its value is what it looked like originally or could look like with sympathetic alterations.  The Municipal Offices is a listed building which has been botched inside, but still has great potential.  We should be thinking about the potential of the cottage and how it can be refurbished – it is important to sort this out when looking at planning applications.  Officers say this was an on-balance recommendation, but it would be helpful if officers gave more specific reasons as to why and how they reached their recommendation.  Takes the point of all they have said, but Members are clearly not happy with their recommendation. Has been on Planning Committee a long time but needs help from officers to produce watertight reasons for refusal.

 

MJC, in response:

-       to MS, the core principles of the NPPF can be added to the refusal reasons to strengthen the case, if necessary;

-       to KS and GB, regarding the issue of overdevelopment of the site, MS’s move to refusal is based on in-principle objections, stemming from access to the site, harm to the street scene, and unjustified demolition.  The inherent value of the site as an undeveloped space has to be considered.  There has been a lot of debate, and officers would therefore be inclined to write draft refusal reasons, then ensure that GB and MS are happy it hits the right note;

-       regarding the on-balance recommendation, officers always have to consider the NPPF’s presumption in favour of development, although MS, KS and BF have come up with enough reasons to craft a strong case for refusal.

 

GB:  does AM want to pursue his move to defer?

 

AM: yes, pending further information about access, the wisteria, and ownership of the wall, because if the proposal is refused tonight, it will go to appeal based on false facts.  We need to have those facts clarified.  If they are in question, the appeal could be lost. 

 

CN:  would like to add to AM’s reasons for deferral:  the site is in the conservation area and it would be helpful to have more information about the property, its age etc. Also, the badgers appear to have been discovered by chance, so it would be worthwhile exploring other environmental issues at the site.

 

MJC, in response:

-       if the decision is deferred tonight, not much additional information will be forthcoming from the applicant – it took six months to get the information on the badgers – so it certainly won’t be next month or any time soon;

-       if officers didn’t feel there was enough information to make a decision, the application wouldn’t be before Members tonight.

 

MS: the suggested refusal reasons aren’t affected by any of these issues.

 

AM:  happy to add as CN suggests as to the deferral.

 

GB:  will proceed to vote on AM’s move for deferral, with CN’s additions.

 

Vote on AM’s move to defer, pending further information 

4 in support

11 in objection

MOTION NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

13 in objection

2 abstentions

RECOMMENDATION NOT APPROVED

 

MS:  confirms his move to refuse should include reference to paragraph 56 of the NPPF with the exact refusal wording to be decided in consultation with Councillor Stennett and the Chair.

 

Vote on MS’s move to refuse on CP7, BE1, NPPF Para 56

13 in support

0 in objection

2 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED – APPLICATION REFUSED