Agenda item

18/00590/FUL Stables, Hyde Lane, Swindon Village

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

18/00590/FUL

Location:

Stables, Hyde Lane, Swindon Village

Proposal:

Erection of dwelling on the site of a former stable block

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

3

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application as above, for the erection of a single dwelling on a site in the green belt, with much of the site outside the principal urban area (PUA).  Permission was granted in 2016 for the stable to be converted into two dwellings; during the conversion, the walls collapsed, making it impossible for that permission to be completed.  This proposal has the same footprint, height and massing, but is in conflict with JCS Policy SD10, as much of the site is outside the PUA.  However, in this instance officers consider that the recent grant of planning permission is a material consideration which outweighs this.  The application is at Committee at the request of the two ward councillors, Councillor Fisher and Councillor Clucas, and also the Parish Council..

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Trainor, applicant, in support

Thanked officers for their handling of the matter, working with the applicant throughout, and resulting in a well-balanced report and recommendation to permit.  The circumstances leading to this application are set out in the officer report – will not repeat them – but the revised design will have the same footprint, mass and scale as the previous proposed conversion, with a higher quality of design, both of the building and the landscaping.  It is supported by the Architects Panel.  Will ensure that it is implemented correctly, and respectfully requests that the Committee permit the proposal.  

 

 

Councillor Clucas, in objection

Councillor Fisher is on mayoral duty – would otherwise be present to join the debate.  In 2016 there was an application for the renovation of the existing stable building, which would have preserved the levels of the building, and ensured it was properly constructed in keeping with the green belt; there was, at that time, no JCS.  Parish councils, county councils, committees all asked to protect as much of the green belt as possible.  The previous application stated that the building was structurally OK to be renovated; an engineer report confirmed this, and it was stated that the slab was to be protected.  Some months ago, the application was permitted by a narrow majority, with Members still concerned about its effect on green belt.  Subsequently, Councillor Fisher was in the area, noticed that ground work being done, and that the slab which should have been maintained was ripped up and levels changed.  As this was clearly a breach of the planning application, contacted planning officers. The breach of condition was confirmed, and later officers stated applicant would have to re-apply.  Is therefore staggered by recommendation to permit this new luxury dwelling. 

 

Paragraph 7 of the objection from the Parish Council is meaningful, concise, and apposite.  They consider that the application violates the green belt, and that if it proceeds it will have an effect on other areas of green belt in and around Cheltenham as older buildings become unsustainable – and therefore investment opportunities. 

 

This not only violates the NPPF but also the Cheltenham Plan – the Council has pledged to protect the green belt.  We are currently committed to building 10,000 properties in Cheltenham; one or two not built in the green belt will protect many, many others around Cheltenham. 

 

With reference to the previous report in 2016, it was considered that the previous proposal didn’t    contravene green belt regulations.  The proposal will.  At Elms Park nearby, there is now a commitment to build 4,200 houses.  We should protect greenbelt, and protect Cheltenham and its residents for the future.

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  remembers planning view for the previous application, when Members looked at the barn and many comments that it looked like it would fall down at any moment.  They were assured it was OK and sound.  The question was asked then – would officers be recommending that scheme for permit if it was  a new build? The hedged answer was ‘probably not’, due to its situation in the green belt etc, prompting Members to wonder what would happen if the barn accidentally fell down…?  Everyone knew what was going to happen; the applicant had no intention of rejuvenating the building – and he is now proposing the new build he wanted in the first place.  Agrees with Councillor Clucas that this new dwelling in the green belt should not be built.

 

Also, in the original application, the applicant stated that access would be along the public footpath – but this cannot become a public highway. Can’t drive a motor vehicle on pubic footpath or run a road on one.  There would have to be separate access, and there no room for this.

 

JP:  fully supports the views of Councillor Clucas, and is concerned that looking at the process, it is not entirely policy compliant.  Regarding the former stable block, policy allows agricultural units to be converted; this was approved, and the structural survey concluded that the building was sound.  Is there not a requirement in such cases that residents occupying the building should have a connection with agriculture, to make a living?    We are now told that the building collapsed when the work was being done and could not be restored.  The remains of the building have now been knocked down, so the planning application can no longer be fulfilled.   Now the applicant wants a new building in the green belt.  The council has worked hard to create a sound JCS and Cheltenham Plan, and this application needs a robust response.  There should be no new build in the green belt; this isn’t infilling and is outside the PUA.   This has no place in the green belt; cannot support it.

 

PM:  SW spoke about the difference between a footpath and a public right of way.  A new access would require a robust bridge over the stream.  The main point is that with we are probably looking at this with images of stable , horses grazing, etc, but before it was a stable it was a brick kiln - making this a brownfield site.  Walked round whole field  and could see remnants of previous industrial uses.  Apart from the intriguing fact that this was intrigues was a brick kiln, it would suggest that there is something adjacent from which to make bricks – most likely clay?  This raises the issue of flooding – there is talk about a SUDS scheme, but sooner or later some water will have to soak away – if on clay, won’t happen.  Continued walking up to the railway line, noting that the application site is low and likely to accumulate water – raising the question of how flood alleviation will work.  However, we are where we are with this, and is minded of the the application at The Hayloft, originally a conversion, now a new build.  This is a brownfield site and something needs to be done with it; there are many examples in Cheltenham of developers failing the get approval and piles of rubble being left for 20 years. 

 

 

DB:  is also concerned about flooding.  Local residents have remarked that the stables were liable to be flooded on occasions.  Has this been looked into?

 

SC:  was on Planning View, and several points raised have been well made tonight.  This was a building for a stable, planning permission was given for two dwellings, it subsequently fell down.  If the stables had been rebuilt as they were, then would the original planning permission for two dwellings would still be in place?  Could the developer build two dwellings?  If that is the case, aren’t we arguing whether he can built two or one dwelling?  Planning permission has already been given – would therefore support this proposal as long as the original levels are adhered to and proper flood amelioration measures explored and applied. 

 

DP:  is making Planning Committee debut tonight, and finds this application interesting having read the outcomes and details of appeals that have been sent to Members, including detailed reasons for why the appeals were allowed and of costs against the council.  One of the points raised was not to take into account previous permissions on the site.  There is extant planning permission, now impossible to carry through –  and this current application is for a building the same size and height.  If it is refused, is the applicant likely to win an appeal and costs be awarded against the council?

 

KH:  is interested in the design of the proposed dwelling – it is of a high standard – and commends the applicant for bringing this scheme to us.

 

MP, in response:

-       To SW’s question regarding the public right of way and access, the informatives at the end of the report are suggested by the highways authority and the PROW team.  The public right of way would need to be closed during the construction period, and the applicant would have to apply for a license to do this.  The future occupant of the dwelling would have to apply for a license too.  Highways officers have assessed the situation, and raised no objection to the access.  It is the same access as previously served the stables, and is established;

-       Regarding flooding, a small part of the site has low risk of surface water flooding.  The applicant has proposed a SUDS pond to alleviate this.  The matter would be assessed under Building Regulations, but a condition is recommended to implement a SUDS scheme;

-       Doesn’t know the composition of the soil in this area, but can confirm  that there is no more risk for this application than the previous one for two dwellings on site.  A levels survey has been done;

-       Regarding the potential for appeal and costs, given the previously permitted application, the original stable building has now gone – the applicant would need planning permission to rebuild the building as was.  There is now no opportunity to implement the previous planning permission – this is set out in the report.

 

KS:  has a question re the finish and cladding.  Are there conditions relating to this?  Will samples be submitted to officers?  Personally feels that wood cladding can end up looking a bit ropey.  Also the levels – are officers happy with these?   Councillor Clucas said that a new building in the green belt would set a precedent, but we are always told to consider each application on its own merit.  Is there a precedent being set here? 

 

SW: if permitted, this application will allow new build in the green belt.  JP and Councillor Clucas have made the point that it is against all policies, including the JCS, for which Members have worked so hard.  The Committee reluctantly agreed to the conversion of the stable; now the stable is no longer there, and this is a fresh application to build in the green belt.  That is the crux of the matter.  Cannot support this application. 

 

DB:  can the legal officer confirm whether this is a brownfield site or greenbelt? 

 

SC:  on Planning View, the officer said she might be able to find an image of the original barn – this would be useful.

 

DP:  returning to SW’s point, this proposal can only count as new building in the greenbelt if this is a greenfield site – where a building was already in place – so  it would not be setting a precedent for building in the greenbelt.  The proposed building will have the same mass, and be no loss to the greenbelt.  Whether this is justified or not is not what concerns him, but the possibility of costs at an appeal.  Has not yet heard from officers what the likelihood is.  Without this information, cannot make a responsible decision.

 

NJ, in response:

-       It is very difficult to give a concrete answer on the likelihood of costs at an appeal.  The report  is balanced in its recommendation, so it would be disappointing if costs were awarded, but it cannot be ruled out.  .

 

MP, in response:

-       To KS, there is a condition requiring samples of the materials to be used, to ensure a high quality finish to the building;

-       To the question whether, if permitted,  this application will undermine JCS Policy SD10 in the future, this is discussed in the report.  The weight of the previous decision has to be taken into account.  If this was new build in the green belt, officer recommendation would be different but as DP has pointed out, in the appeal decision for The Hayloft, the inspector gave significant weight to the previous decisions even though these could not be implemented.  Therefore the only conflict is with the JCS;

-       To DB, this is a brownfield site, having been previously developed for equestrian use.  Inspector acknowledged previous use was brownfield , although in a green field;

-       To SC, apologies but was unable to find a photo of the original building.

 

JP:  the officer said that if this was new build, it would be in conflict with JCS SD10.  Future developers looking to build on the green belt will look at the extenuating circumstances of this case and claim the same. This will be a dangerous precedent.

 

SW:  regarding the way we make decisions,  DP is concerned about costs, the possibility of an appeal etc, but in all his training over the years has been told we should look at application before us, and not be overly concerned with the ifs and buts and dangers , and what might happen if it goes wrong. 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

8 in support

3 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: