Agenda item

18/01083/CONDIT Cotswold View, The Reddings

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

18/01083/CONDIT

Location:

Cotswold View, The Reddings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Variation of condition 2 on planning permission ref. 17/01220/FUL to amend the approved plans to allow for the addition of roof lights to the front and rear roof slopes.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

21

Update Report:

Letter from agent

 

EP introduced the application as above, advising Members that the work has already been carried out, creating an additional bedroom and en suite bathroom in the roof space.  If the dwellings were complete and occupied, this work would come under permitted development - this is the fall back position for the applicant and a material consideration in the decision-making process.  The application has been called to Committee by Councillor Collins, in view of neighbour objections to the proposal.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr McKie, secretary of The Reddings Residents Association, in objection

The Reddings Residents Association welcomes new development which complements the area, by adding amenity and prosperity to The Reddings; the B1 offices in the area are supported, and will hopefully bring some welcome higher-paid jobs.  The variation to this planning condition is different; a way of pushing through a scheme which would otherwise have been refused.  Looking at the application time line, TRRA, councillors and CBC were only aware of the developer’s intentions when an advertising board for 4-bedroomed luxury executive homes, displayed on the fencing soon after building work started.  This has now been taken down, but at best the sign was premature, at worst complacent  - and the properties are still being marketed as 4-bedroomed on the developer’s website.  This seems to be this developer’s modus operandi – it is not the first time he has adopted this route.  In this case he has attributed it to the good weather, which is rather convenient. The roof trusses for an attic room would have to be ordered well in advance, and even the foundation design would be different for this four-bedroomed proposal, rather than the three-bedroomed permissioned one.     The developer could have applied for variation a long time ago, and it was only the intervention of the   enforcement office and a councillor that made it necessary for him to do so.   Three four-bedroomed houses will place further strain on off-street parking; understands that the Council follows a general rule of thumb of two spaces and a garage for a four-bedroomed property; there  is not enough room  for garages on this site, so  where will the cars be parked?  This is critical for North Road East, now reduced to one lane only near the roundabout due to parked BMW staff vehicles. Additional parking on The Reddings will further limit visibility, with the ever-increasing through-flow traffic.  The chances of an accident will increase.  The developer’s own traffic survey is full of startling figures and anomalies – cars have been recorded doing in excess of 40, 50, 60mph, even during peak times; council figures, percentiles and statistics are no comfort to the family of those killed or injured. 

 

 

The applicant was unable to attend the meeting but asked that his letter be re-circulated with the blue papers for Members to read at this point.

 

 

Councillor Britter, in objection

This variation of condition application has created a lot of ill feeling in the area.  After the frustration and hostility aroused by the BMW showroom and the Hayloft, this application needs to be carefully considered to avoid any future ‘mistakes’ and ensure this is does not set a precedent for the future.  As Members have just heard, TRRA has some serious questions about the suitability of this proposal proceeding any further. Will not reiterate these, but will examine a few in more detail.  Firstly, the time line – the developer acknowledged during the early stages of the development, it was recognised that there was capacity for an extra room in the roof space – though he probably realised before the building started on the foundations, as provision was made for the staircase and extra weight. The roof structure would have needed a bespoke plan and the floor plan would have to be amended to allow for a staircase from the first to the second floor. But no variation of condition application for the additional room and two Velux windows was submitted until after the notice advertising the properties as four-bedroomed had gone up. 

 

The drawings for this show the intention of the room extension, but no dimensions or cross sections.  There is no application for a roof extension, only for Velux windows.  There may be fall back, in speculating what a future occupant may do, but that doesn’t mean future occupants would necessarily want to do it – such a conversion would probably cost them £30k and cause a lot of disruption – unlikely that all three new occupants would do so after purchase.  Four-bedroomed properties were on the agenda from the beginning. 

 

A larger house will have additional parking requirements, but there is no means to extend, or to included any visitor spaces.  Some excessive speeds have been recorded along road,  visibility is poor at the roundabout, and the additional traffic is on primary bus route – all this needs careful consideration. 

 

The developer has ignored the sensitivity of local residents, with demolition taking place on Saturday afternoons, scaffolding being erected from 8.00am for three hours on Sunday 1st July.  Enforcement offices contacted the developer to say this was unacceptable.  Vans are parked on the site at the front of the roundabout – North Road East – forcing traffic onto wrong side of road.  There has already been one minor accident, and neighbours’ view is restricted in and out of their properties.  The developer had time to engage with community prior to construction and during, but  has carried on regardless; he finally sent an email to councillors and TRRA last Thursday – but this is too little too late.  If planning permission is given, the developer will be enriched. 

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  on a point of clarity, Councillor Britter has commented that he (SW) had been looking to do work on the roundabout; would just say this has nothing to do with the proposal being considered tonight, although this would impact on it.  The roundabout is a hazard, and impinges on these properties. 

 

It is a case of ‘here we go again’ with this proposal.  Most Members, especially local Members in the Reddings, were not happy with the loss of the original cottage.  On site visit for this proposal, found the new properties to be very overbearing, but they have planning permission so there is little or nothing we can do about that.   It is a situation we have come across so many times: the developer has a plan he wants to put together; he either tries it on and fails and then puts in for a smaller plan, or goes in for the smaller plan, gets permission, then comes back with an alteration to get what he wanted in the first place – resulting in the smaller impact proposal having much greater impact.  However, on paper, all we are looking at here is two windows, which could be put in under permitted development rights, and retrospectively.  Is not happy with this application; is not happy with what is already there; will not be happy to vote in favour of the proposal but is not sure what refusal reasons could be used.

 

JP:  agrees with SW.  This is a cynical use of the planning system.  Cannot believe a developer of Mr Le Grand’s experience planned 3-bedroomed properties without the intention of creating 4-bedroomed houses from the start.  The only reason for doing it this way is that on this site, 3-bedroomed properties with two parking spaces each would not be so controversial, but they were very quickly being advertised as 4-bedroomed dwellings.  This will move them out of the reach of many potential customers; with three bedrooms, they may even have been on the verge of being considered affordable.  It is a very difficult situation, and the fall-back position makes it difficult to resist.  Roof lights and attic conversions should be down to the individual owner.  The developer should not use the council to get what he wants.

 

MC:  the starting point here is, build what you have permission for.  This is an unpopular development, which caused a lot of local interest.  The sensible thing for the developer to have done would be to get on with it,  and keep his head down.  Instead, he gets planning permission for 3-bedroomed houses and goes ahead to build 4-bedroomed houses.  His justification is that the building schedule was ahead of itself, due to good weather, and that it was suddenly noticed that there was space for an additional room in the roof space.  PD rights should come into force only once a property is occupied; they should not be a means for the developer to get more than he has applied for.  This is an experienced developer, well aware of the limitations upon him, and this application is waving two fingers at the planning process.  The timeline reeks of double standards; taking advantage of one condition, and not sticking to other conditions too closely – all construction traffic is supposed to be within the confines of the site, with the exception of delivery vehicles, but has witnessed on several occasions six contractor vans parked on the road.

 

PB:  these matters are not relevant to this planning application.

 

MC:  it is relevant to the angry neighbour who called him on Sunday morning – we need to take these things into account with this application.

 

PB:  it has nothing to do with the case.

 

MC:  it is reasonable that a buyer would buy a 3-bedroomed property as he wants it; it is not reasonable to assume that the buyer would immediately want four bedrooms; it is reasonable to say that there will be more traffic from a 4-bedroomed property than a 3-bedroomed one.  All this is relevant.  Saw the marketing sign for 4-bedroomed properties long before the developer sent his letter.  He is manipulating the planning process as much as he can.  There will be more traffic from four bedrooms than from three.  We only have the traffic survey to go on, with all its variations.  How can it be relied on?  It was seriously flawed and shouldn’t be taken into account.  At this point, because the developer hasn’t kept with what he has planning permission for, he should be told to stick with what he’s got.  Cannot support this proposal.

 

DB:  echoes off these points.  Are there any planning reasons to refuse?  Would be grateful for any guidance.  Is additional traffic a consideration?  Would like to think there are reasons, but is not convinced.

 

PB: there are no planning reasons, but the officer will explain further:

 

EP, in response:

-       Must remind Members again of the fall-back position – that this proposed work could be done under permitted development rights.  Whether or not future occupants would exercise those rights can’t be known, but this fall-back position is established through planning law, and is a material planning consideration in the decision;

-       Understands Members’ and neighbours’ frustration at the retrospective nature of the application but this is not an offence, and it would not be appropriate to refuse planning permission to punish this behaviour;

-       If Members want to refuse, it needs to be based on the planning merits of the scheme; has not heard any refusal reasons yet.  The officer report sets out the relevant planning considerations, and there is no valid refusal reason that will stand up to scrutiny.

 

PB:  endorses all that Members have said about the cavalier nature of the application.  It is outrageous but there is nothing to be done.  Asks that the officer writes to the applicant to express Committee’s disquiet at the way he has gone about this.

 

SW:  going back to the original application – was never happy with that – it was for three 3-bedroomed houses.  There was a question at that time over the traffic survey with regard to numbers.  Now there are three 4-bedroomed houses, and this has to increase the impact.  The only possible objection would be the increased traffic impact.

 

SC:  this is a retrospective planning application, and it might be perceived that the applicant is trying to manipulate the planning system.  The fact is that if this work had been done at the end of the build, it would have been permitted development – it will not change the roofline or the volume of the roof space.   Has sympathy with Members’ comments, and understands why they are so cross, but if this work can be done under permitted development there is nothing to be done.  We can criticise the original planning permission and the traffic survey, but these have been and gone, and now these changes can be made quite legitimately  It is indisputable that this application cannot be refused; it is going to happen.  It is very annoying, but we have no option but to permit.

 

PB:  will take the vote on the officer recommendation to permit. If this is lost, a Member will need to move to refuse, with planning reasons.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

4 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT

 

 

Supporting documents: