Agenda item

MJC introduced the application, which Members will remember from November Planning Committee.  The recommendation to refuse focussed on the impact and the cramped, contrived nature of the proposed dwelling.  Late in proceedings, highway visibility was raised as an issue, and the recommendation was refuse, but to delegate the decision back to officers, once the highways matter had been fully considered.  Members endorsed this recommendation.  Late in December, the visibility issue was resolved, with the conclusion that there is no highways concern here.  Officers were therefore in a position to refuse the application, based on the substantive reasons, but met with the applicant who was concerned that the application was not presented clearly to Members.  The decision has not yet been issued, so officers felt it right to bring the application back to Members to consider the issues again, as it was not the clearest of recommendations on the previous occasion.  The recommendation remains to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mr Guy Wakefield, Hunter Page Planning on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of local residents who strongly object to this planning application.  Nothing has changed since it was last considered at Committee, and the 2014 refusal reasons can be used to refuse this proposal for a new dwelling on the same plot.  There is an expectation that any new development should preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area.  It is significant that this application site is in the AONB, and great weight must be attached to national policy when determining such applications.  This is a semi-rural location, characterised by large detached houses on large plots.  This proposal would be out of keeping, a viewpoint supported by aerial photos of the area.  The officer report for the 2014 application stated the importance of considering the landscape character when determining the scheme for development.  AONB has the highest protection, and any development must be suitable for the local context.  This proposal is not in keeping with the context, which is characterised by larger plots.   The current unkempt appearance of the plot does not justify this application to improve it, and this would be a dangerous precedent if it were given any weight.  There is no benefit to outweigh the harm this proposal would cause, and to ensure consistency with the previous decision, it should be refused.

Mr Simon Firkins, SFPlanning on behalf of applicant, in support

Is speaking on behalf of the applicant, who addressed Committee in November but found it rather daunting.  Was concerned that there was no pre-warning of the highways issue before that meeting, and is glad that officers have brought it back to Committee now for a decision.  Members received an email last night, stating that the proposal will have no impact on highway safety.  They also received a Nolli plan showing the size and scale of all dwellings in the area, including two recently approved new dwellings further down the hill.  It is clear that their footprint to plot size ratio is greater than the outline proposal being considered tonight, which is small, local and in keeping.  3D drawings have also been produced to show that the impact on the AONB will not be harmful.  Neither the Parish nor the Civic Society have raised any objections, and some of objectors live miles away, which is baffling.  Is surprised that the agent working for the neighbours is objecting to the scheme, as they too are proposing to build in the AONB.  Is bewildered and cannot see where officers are coming from in their recommendation to refuse, when common sense says the scheme should be permitted.  Members were previously minded to refuse, but the extra information provided since then demonstrates that this is an unusual but not unreasonable proposal in this location.

Member debate:

SW:  has not changed his mind since November, and Mr Firkins has said it all tonight. As a member of the Cotswold Conservation Board, has spoken off-record to them regarding this scheme, in view of their lack of official comment – they consider it insignificant and do not have the time to deal with it.  On site, it is clear that only the person in the house to the south of the application site is going to have any view of it; from the road, trees are in the way.  This is a scrubby bit of land, and we should welcome the prospect of it being tidied up.  It will do no harm to the AONB.  If there were no other properties in the area, would be saying no to this proposal, but one more modest building on this small piece of land can only improve the area.  Will vote in support of the scheme. 

BF:  regarding the impact on the AONB, permission for two dwellings on a neighbouring site has been granted since this application was last considered, which will have greater impact on the AONB.  Planning Committee also approved the plans for the GCHQ Oakley site, the top of which is in the AONB and can be viewed from clearly from above – that development will have much greater impact visually, size wise, and regarding the amount of land taken up.  One of the dwellings fills a bigger proportion of the site than what is proposed here.  This is a modest house; it’s true that the area is characterised by big houses, but there are smaller houses too, and big doesn’t necessarily mean good – size has nothing to do with the quality of the area or the building.  This proposal will have no impact on the AONB, unless someone walks right up the drive, and only the residents of Kings Welcome will have it in view – which we know is not a reason to refuse planning permission.  The Bredons is to be demolished, and two large houses built in its place; they will screen this proposed dwelling even more. 

We would be crazy to talk about refusing this application when we have approved other similar schemes all around it.  The amount of space within the site this dwelling will occupy is quite proportionate.  The point of an outline application is to ascertain whether a site can be developed, and in this case we should be saying yes, it can and it should. 

LS:  last time this proposal was at Committee, the highways issue was very much a secondary consideration to the primary issues:   the impact on the AONB and whether the potential benefit outweighed the potential harm by its negligible contribution to the need for housing.  Ed Baker’s original report noted that the site is ‘within the Cotswold AONB and contributes to the spacious semi-rural character of the area’, concluding that ‘development of the site would be detrimental to this character and would result in a cramped form of development which would fail to respond to the prevailing character and layout of the surrounding area’.  This hits the nail on the head.  The plot is too small.  The proposal is out of character in this semi-rural location and in relation to existing properties. And the contribution to the borough’s housing supply is insignificant when weighed against the potential harm it will cause.   Can see no reason to change the previous recommendation.

PB:  agrees with SW and BF.  Land is finite, and this may only be one small house, but it will accommodate a family.  It will have minimal impact on the area; there are far bigger houses all around it.  Has changed his mind since the last debate; will support the application.

HM:  regarding BF’s comments about not being able to see the site from the road, the suggested refusal reason is not about the view – it is concerned with the cramped nature of the proposed development on this site.  It will be totally out of character with the area.  Will support the officers’ recommendation.

MJC, in response:

-       the question of context is covered in the suggested refusal reason, and is the nub of the issue.  The proposal is not only contrary to local plan policies, but also to the SPD on Garden Land and Infill Sites in Cheltenham.  The issue is not whether it can be seen from the road etc, but whether it is appropriate development in this location, an area characterised by large houses in spacious plots. This is changing, but contextually, the houses sit in space and have a presence. Officers consider this proposal will not - it is contrived and contextually inappropriate;

-       the recent appeal decision at Copt Elm Road is an endorsement of the SPD, and demonstrates that its guidance is still relevant.  This has informed the recommendation to refuse.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

9 in support

4 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE