Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above.  The site is in the north of the borough, in the green belt, at the end of  an unmade track.  It is at Committee because the Parish Council has objected.  Although officers had initial reservations, they are now satisfied that this work can be undertaken and is appropriate to a rural setting, and the recommendation is therefore, on balance, to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

HM:  is concerned about the access.  The site is at the end of a long, narrow track.  When other similar schemes have been considered, passing places have been discussed.  Is there any intention to have them here?  If not, what will happen when one vehicle meets another?

BF:  wants to move to refuse.  This proposal is for a conversion in the green belt;  if it was for a farm building, it could be done without planning permission.  It is currently a stable – an appropriate leisure and sporting use – in  the heart of the green belt, and not part of strategic sites to be taken out.  This development is therefore inappropriate. If the proposal is permitted and subsequently falls down, it would be difficult to resist an application for full planning permission having agreed the principle of building in the green belt. The ground is prone to flooding – a lot of work would have to be done to avert potential problems – and the design is appalling for the green belt. HM has mentioned access, which will be difficult in winter, and also for dustbin and recycling collections every fortnight.  Also, the site is close to the public right of way, part of the circular route around Cheltenham, which is well-used by walkers with dogs etc.  The fields around the site will remain as grazing.  In view of the poor access and inappropriate development in the green belt, will move to refuse on grounds of CO13, CO6 and CP7.

SW:  echoes BF’s comments.  This scheme is so contrived it’s not true.  These are not agricultural buildings, but a poorly-built stable – it is very dilapidated, and if it falls down, where will the planning authority stand regarding the two dwellings?  Will our hands be tied?  Will support BF’s objections; we would not allow these houses to be built afresh, and adapting a poor-quality building and calling it a conversion is just too contrived. 

DS:  is the road due for resurfacing or will it be left as it is and presumably be unadopted when the proposal is finished?

MP, in response:

-       To HM, there are no identified passing places, but Highways assessment suggests that the first 5m of the access should be modified to have a minimum width of 4.1m, with 4.5m entry and exit  radii, to ensure satisfactory means of access is provided and maintained;

-       To DS, the road would need to be resurfaced, but is unlikely to be adopted;

-       Regarding concerns about precedent and whether the building is capable of conversion, the information submitted to date has been reviewed by building control; a robust method statement could be required by condition.  If at any point the building cannot be converted, an application would be needed to rebuild and this would be considered on its own merits – and would be contrary to policy.  This application is only being considered because it is a conversion;

PT:  how can we consider it without that additional information  - neither a full planning application or a method statement – it isn’t right to do so at this stage.  Have the applicants had any discussions concerning this?

PB:  supports the application.  The timber blends in well and looks appropriate, although the design isn’t great.  Officers have investigated to make sure the building is capable of conversion, and this is the only way the two dwellings can be achieved – newbuild here is not appropriate.  The town is short housing, and these two units are needed.  There were conflicts regarding highways and rights of way, but no objections raised.  Is happy to support officers – it could be better but it is OK.

PT:  MP said the road had to be a certain width at both ends.  Does this have to be achieved before any building takes place?

MP, in response:

-       Has been back to the agent twice for more information  to give to the building control manager comfort that the building can be converted, but what officers have is all that has been provided during the application period;

-       Regarding the width of the road, has suggested a condition that no other work should commence on the site until that work is carried out;

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support

6 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT