Agenda item

16/02205/FUL The Hayloft, The Reddings

Minutes:

 

 

 

 

Application Number:

16/02205/FUL

Location:

The Hayloft, The Reddings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Retention of works carried out; including those under planning permission reference 14/02249/FUL as well as the removal and replacement of elements of the original Hayloft building not covered by planning permission reference 14/02249/FUL and minor alterations to the approved scheme.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

21

Update Report:

Additional representations

 

EP introduced this application, and explained some of its complex history:  permission for extension of the existing dwelling was granted in 2014, and subsequent work has been done which falls under permitted development rights.  Since work commenced, however, all that remained of the original dwelling has been demolished and new elements constructed without planning permission.  As this work was not lawfully executed, this application seeks to rectify the situation.  The resultant dwelling is the same size as that for which permission was granted in 2014, but with a side element, first floor addition, and fenestration amendments.  The 2014 consent cannot be implemented, as nothing remains of the original dwelling, but officers consider that what has been built does not cause any additional harm, with regard to design, neighbouring amenity, or impact on the openness of the green belt.  As such, the recommendation is to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Peter Swales, neighbour, in objection

The Hayloft site has been subject to a raft of applications since 2005, two of which are relevant to the current one.  In 2012, Planning Committee gave permission for a replacement dwelling of contemporary design, approximately 4,000 square feet – similar to the original building.  Constructions started and it soon became apparent that what was being done bore no relation to the approved plans.  Work stopped, and in December 2014 a new application for extensions (part retrospective) was made, including a massive basement and ground floor extension to the rear, and major changes to the lay-out and orientation of the rest of the building.  This increased the overall size to approximately 7,000 square feet, but the application was approved by the planning department without going back to Planning Committee.  Construction started again, and it was soon clear that this building was not in accordance with approved plans; a stop notice was issued, and the current planning application was subsequently made. The proposed building is now over 8,000 square feet – a true monster – and totally inappropriate for an important site on the border of the green belt.  This alone is grounds to reject the proposal.  

 

In view of the previous devious manoeuvrings of the developer, it is hard to believe that this building is intended to be a single dwelling: the word ‘dwelling’ no longer appears in the title of the application; the rooms are labelled ‘dining room’. ‘drawing room’ etc, but this doesn’t appear to be genuine attempt to design a house of this size and status – it would not be marketable; the design and lay-out is more suited to 12 or 13 self-contained apartments.

 

The developer has proceeded with little regard to the requirements of the planning process, and if permission is granted tonight, other developers will be encouraged to behave in a similar fashion.  If the committee does decide to approve the application, however, can a condition be added to ensure that the building is used only as a single dwelling unit, as implied by the plans. 

 

Ms Liz Shield, of SFPlanning, in support

 

The site has a long and complex planning history, but the principle of a dwelling of this size and footprint was established in the approved planning application in 2014.  The current application relates to minor changes, including the provision of a flat roof and the positioning of windows and doors.  It does not seek to intensify the use of the site, and highway and access arrangements are unchanged.  The applicant has worked with planning officers to produce an appropriate design for the location.  There are concerns about the removal of the remaining original wall, and that this was done to make it easier to get retrospective planning permission; this wasn’t the case.  The wall was in need of repair, and was considered by the applicants to be at odds with the rest of the building.  The applicants don not have planning expertise and made a genuine error in removing the wall, which they are now keen to rectify.  The application also includes some additional elements which require consent; the description of the development was discussed at length with CBC’s planning and legal teams to ensure complete accuracy, and takes into account the minor works and removal of the original building.  Local people are anxious to ensure the green belt is preserved; this application is for minor works within the previously approved footprint, so ensuring the openness of the green belt is preserved.  Neighbours are also concerned about possible future uses of the site, but the lawful use of the site is as a single dwelling, and this application does not seek to change that.  If any proposal for a change of use were to come forward, it would be applied for using the correct processes, and be determined by the Council on its merits, taking into account the views of local residents.

 

The report outlines the proposal’s compliance with all relevant local and national policy, and the fact that material considerations weigh in favour of granting permission.  The scheme is therefore worthy of Members’ support and will have a beneficial impact on neighbours in terms of amenity, as well as having no impact on the green belt which they are so justifiably keen to preserve. 

 

Councillor Britter, ward councillor, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of residents of The Reddings, who believe that the current application is invalid because it is for the retention of works carried out under the 2014 planning permission, but The Hayloft has been completely demolished and replaced with a wholly new building.   As such it doesn’t represent appropriate form of building in the green belt, and its scale and proportions are not in keeping with the environment or the area.  This is at odds with Policy CO7, and the replacement building in its more prominent position detracts from the openness of the green belt, contrary to Policy CO8.  Approval of this application would be in effect rewarding the developer for systematic breaches of the planning process and disregard for the green belt, which may encourage similar actions by others. 

 

The majority of local people are disappointed by the lack of clarity, transparency and responsiveness, and the lack of response to their requests for information from the planning department has seriously undermined their confidence in the planning system. 

 

Several applications have been submitted for this site, and each time the developers have flagrantly breached the approved scheme and built what they want;  there can be no clearer example of the flagrant abuse of the planning system, which has warranted frequent involvement of the enforcement team.  If this application is permitted, it makes a mockery of the whole planning process; granting approval for the retention of what is obviously an abuse of procedure would further undermine public confidence in the planning system.  If the Council doesn’t draw a line, it will encourage further breaches and make planning policy a travesty, sending a message to developers and residents that anything is possible without appropriate prior planning permission, that it is fine to build whatever you like in the area, green belt or not, and then get retrospective planning permission; this brazen precedent sets a strong case to do just that. 

 

The application should be refused on a number of grounds:  one, it is an illegal development without planning permission; two, it is ‘inappropriate development’ in the green belt; three, it is devoid of architectural merit or sensitivity, visual or otherwise, to its surroundings; four, its size, depth, width, height and massing will adversely impact on neighbouring amenity; five, approval would reward the developer for breaching the planning process and disregarding the green belt; and six, it is detrimental to community cohesion, causing disputes and tensions between neighbours which will increase in the future. 

 

Member debate:

PT:  the neighbour speaking in objection asked if there could be a condition that this building is only used as a single dwelling.  Various uses have been mentioned over the years, including one application for four apartments – is this extant?

 

PB:  has several questions:  can officers remind him of what Policy CO2 relates to?;is it true, as the speaker has said, that the footprint has doubled in size from 4,000 sq metres to 8,000 sq metres?; the speaker mentioned that the 2014 application was decided under delegated powers – is surprised that such a contentious application was not brought to Committee; and if this application is permitted, and the applicant then applies to convert the building into four apartments, would that application automatically come to Committee?

 

HM:  Policy CO7 states that replacement dwellings in the green belt should be less that 15% bigger than the original dwelling.  Does this proposal fulfill that requirement?

 

SW:  Councillor Britter and the speaker said that the original building has now gone, which means that any proposed work under permitted development rights, or any further extensions, no longer stand – we are, in effect, looking at a brand new building in a greenfield site, asking for retrospective planning permission to build it.  The question is whether we would allow this building to be built on a clear site in the green belt?  No, we wouldn’t.  Is therefore not happy with this proposal.  It is a new build, with no relevance to what was there before. 

 

MC:  in all his years in planning, has never come across a case like this.  Having listened to the objections, read the representations, heard what the agent and Councillor Britter have to say, it would appear that the applicant and developer are waving two fingers at the planning process and the DCLG.   Not just flouting the rules, they have shown a crass disregard for the full process.  What are members being asked to approve today?  This current application?  The one before?  What is the fall-back position if this application is refused?  Why didn’t the applicant build the scheme for which he had permission?  Why has there been no activity on site since Christmas 2016?  As a local ward member, receives many phone calls and visits from people in the ward; one phone call in particular stands out, from someone who would not give a name and address or any other details.  This person, having made an objection on line, was visited by the applicant the following day, and found his behaviour very intimidating. The long history and tone of the objections says it all.

 

There is also a feeling among local people that this building will not be used as a single dwelling.  It could easily be divided into several self-contained units.  Officers tell us that if this is what the applicant wants, a change of use application will be needed, but this isn’t a particularly comforting response, bearing in mind the applicant’s flagrant disregard for the process.  He is more likely to do what he wants, then apply retrospectively.

 

If the people of Cheltenham are to take any comfort, we need to stop these free hits. We have listened to both sides of the argument.  If the application is refused, maybe CBC will be able to maintain some degree of public confidence in the process.  There is nothing of any merit in this application; if enforcement action is required, we should stand by that, even if it results in demolition of the building.  The planning process must be respected.  The application should be refused on the grounds of CO7 and CO8.

 

BF:  when this site first came to the attention of the planning committee, read the letters of representation and went on site visit; was struck by the notion that this proposal could be said to comply with policy CP7.  In the green belt, the design should be of the highest quality, but saw nothing of any quality in this building.    Planning permission was previously given to alter the existing building, as it was before the planning permission was sought; now we are dealing with a new build.  Has sat in on briefings about what constitutes good design, and can see nothing of that here.  Policies CP4 and CP7 are relevant, with regard to the effect on neighbours.  The building doesn’t enhance the neighbourhood in any way, or have a balanced design.  In addition, the quality of the the build and brickwork is very poor – it is an abomination.  It would be best to start all over again and apply for a new permission to build on this site.  For the current application, CP4 and C7  should be used as additional refusal reasons to those suggested by MC.

 

EP, in response:

-       a condition can be attached to the permission to ensure that the building is used as a single dwelling.

 

PT:  was actually asking about the previous application for four apartments – is this still extant?

 

EP, in response:

-       no, that application was not implemented and has expired;

-       to PB, policy CO2 is concerned with harm to the natural beauty of the AONB;

-       it is true that the floorspace has doubled in square metres from the original Hayloft, before any extensions, to what is proposed now – this was permitted under the the previous application;

-       as to why the 2014 application was decided under delegated powers, the council has a system of referral to Committee, and there was no request for a Committee decision on that proposal;

-       any change of use from a single dwelling to flats would require planning permission, and officers can make a note that if such an application is received, Members would like it to come to Committee for a decision;

-       to HM, Policy CO7 does set a limit of a maximum 15% increase in the size of a replacement dwelling in the green belt, but this related to permitted development rights at the time; the 2014 planning permission for extensions to the original dwelling, together with permitted development rights as they stand today, mean that the proposed dwelling will not exceed the limits set out in CO7;

-       to MC, the fall-back position is for the 2012 consent for a new-build dwelling on the site.  If the application being considered today is refused, this will be the only extant permission for this site;

-       Members are being asked to approve works to the structure as it stands today; previous consents are material considerations, and it should be remembered that CBC permitted a structure of similar dimensions to what has been constructed;

-       for the record, there has been no activity on the site since Christmas at the request of the enforcement team.

 

GB:  has so far heard policies CO7, CO8 and CP7 suggested as reasons to refuse this application.

Members will need to vote on the officer recommendation to permit first.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

15 in objection – unanimous

Officer recommendation not carried

 

MJC, in response:

-       if Members refuse the application, the enforcement team is likely to require demolition of the building.  This is explained in the report, but it is important to raise the matter in the debate. 

 

BF:  regarding enforcement, a stop notice has already been served on the developer.  If the current application is refused today, can the applicant appeal?  If so, presumably no enforcement action will be taken until the applicant either wins or loses at appeal?

 

EP, in response:

-       the applicant has the right to appeal.  The matter has been discussed with enforcement officers; under these circumstances, the applicant only has 28 days in which to make an appeal instead of the usual six months.  For any further enforcement action to be taken, the advice of officers will be required on the technicalities.

LS:  is the house currently occupied?

 

[no]

 

GB: so if Members vote to refuse the application, what will happen next?

 

MJC, in response:

-       not wishing to complicate matters, if Members refuse the application, an enforcement notice to demolish the building will be issued, and the applicant will have the opportunity to appeal against the enforcement notice;

-       enforcement activity should be delegated to officers; if the application is refused, will Members want the enforcement notice to run in tandem with the appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission?

 

HM:   as muchof tonight’s debate has been concerned with the applicant’s disregard for the planning process, would like the Committee to follow the correct process and allow him 28 days in which to make an appeal.

 

PT:  would like to see enforcement action taken and the building demolished, but whether or not to allow the applicant 28 days to appeal, will leave this to other Members to decide.  Is not inclined to do so  - the applicant has shamelessly manipulated the planning process.

 

MC:  appreciates what officers are saying, but has heard nothing to change his mind.  Would like enforcement officers to use their powers; if the building is demolished, so be it.

 

BF:  as HM says, the applicant has disregarded planning rules, but if there is a legal requirement to give them 28 days to appeal, we should stick by the rules, then instigate any enforcement action.

 

MJC, in response:

-       if Members want an enforcement notice served, this can be done, but it is right to discuss the merits of the case at Planning Committee;

-       enforcement action can be delegated to officers in the enforcement team, who will make a judgement based on the facts of the case, whether to serve notice immediately or wait for 28 days;

-       at appeal, the Inspector will consider whether demolition is proportionate to the harm the new building will cause; the previous planning permission is for a dwelling of the same size as the current one, and the impact on the green belt will be the same – hence the judgement on proportionality – is the remedy proportionate to the harm?

 

GB:  do Members want to vote on whether to give the applicant 28 days to appeal or serve the enforcement notice straight away?

 

CH:  what was the previous advice from officers?  If the applicant is successful in his appeal, then by default he will be allowed to retain the building.  If we leave it for 28 days before issuing the enforcement notice, will this mean the whole process takes much longer?  Which is the cleaner way of doing it?  Can officers explain, for clarity?

 

MJC, in response:

-       this isn’t a scenario which occurs very often; the cleaner way is serve an enforcement noticesetting a time period for demolition – the applicant will appeal, the Inspector will consider the appeal and all matters concerning the case. It will be clearer if we have set out what we think should happen.

 

PT:  this application goes back many years; we have run around long enough.  Is sad it has come to this, but we have to draw a line.

 

GB:  officers have heard what Members have said about this case.  They need to take this away, talk to the enforcement team and take advice.  The Chair and Vice-Chair can then make the final decision, based on that advice, and on Members’ wishes.  Further debate won’t achieve anything at this stage.

 

MC:  it would strengthen the case if officers take the will of the Committee to their discussion with enforcement officers.

 

GB:  officers understand this already; more discussion won’t be helpful.

 

Vote on move to allow 28 days before serving an enforcement notice

10 in support

4 in objection

1 abstention

CARRIED

 

Vote on MC’s move to refuse on CO7, CO8 and CP7

15 in support – unanimous

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE

 

 

Supporting documents: