Agenda item

Officer introduction

GD:  Introduced the application which was seeking permission to convert three farm buildings to three dwellings, and to demolish and rebuild the existing farmhouse.  He highlighted that there was an additional condition, requiring a landscape scheme and advised that it was at Planning Committee because of an objection from the Parish Council and at the request of Councillor Babbage.

Mr Maloney, in objection

Explained that he was speaking against this application on behalf of the residents of Ham. He stated that the prime objection related to the demolition of a partial Cotswold Stone House, which was good enough to be currently occupied, and replacing it with a relocated modern new build. He highlighted that the site sits on the Lower Slopes of Ham Hill within the Cotswold AONB. He cited policy CO13 of the current town plan which states that;

“The conversion of rural buildings will only be permitted where: the building is appropriately located and suitably constructed and otherwise is suitable for conversion without substantial demolition, rebuilding or extension.”

He highlighted that the Courtyard Farm Buildings, which were originally part of Glenfall Farm, have a development history covering a 200-year period and are shown on Survey Maps of 1859 & 1883. He reiterated that this is the only Courtyard Complex of Cotswold Stone Barns within Ham, and felt that this application would needlessly demolish part of it. He noted that as per policies HEP1, DTP1 & CO3 now SD7 of the AONB and the JCS, such buildings should be preserved whenever possible. 

He explained that data extracted from published survey documents provides a comparison between the current dwelling and the proposed replacement and highlighted that the new build would have a footprint 1.4 times bigger, a volume that is 2.4 times larger and a ridge elevation increased by 3.54 meters which is 11’ 7” higher. He felt that with such increases, bearing in mind the design, construction materials and position on site, the building would be overpowering and dominate the area to the detriment of the farmstead’s history. He felt this was clearly shown by the developer’s visualisation, titled “street elevation” dated March 8th.

He highlighted that the previously approved plans demonstrated that all the buildings could be converted without demolition or relocation. Thus, preserving the character of the settlement, he felt there was no justification for the demolition of the existing dwelling, other than to build a vastly larger, modern structure that does not sit comfortably within the landscape, to the neighbourhood’s detriment and urbanisation of the AONB.

Councillor Savage, in objection

He reasoned that the tiny and historic hamlet of Ham is one of the most picturesque and unspoilt areas of Cheltenham, lying outside the principal urban area and within the AONB. 

He highlighted that the application site itself is situated at the  crossroads between Ham Hill, Ham Road and Mill Lane, and thus is at the heart of this ancient settlement, overlooking the small village green and post box, and visible from many directions. He noted that paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that ‘great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and cultural heritage of the AONB’, and he felt that both of these would be adversely impacted by permitting this application. He also highlighted that paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that when considering applications in the AONB the committee should consider 3 things:

-The need for the development;

-The scope for meeting the development need in another way; and

-The extent to which the detrimental effects of the development could be moderated or mitigated.

He explained that in considering these three points the committee should be mindful of the fact that in May last year permission was granted to develop the same site in a manner which conserved the existing farmhouse, and did not negatively impact on the landscape or character of the AONB in which the application site sits. He highlighted that the previous application (00633) was not objected to by the Parish Council, nor was it objected to by local councillors or local residents. He felt it was sympathetic to the context and preserved the existing historic building.

He stressed that the replacement dwelling proposed was both significantly larger in terms of footprint and would sit higher in terms of the surround street scene, meaning it would be both prominent and highly visible. He felt that the overall result would be an overbearing development, out of keeping with the surrounding area and be in breach of both national planning policy and the local plan, including SD7 of the JCS which states that development in the AONB should only be in exceptional circumstances, and when it is in the public interest.

He further stressed that the application would not help address our need for affordable housing, nor make a significant contribution to housing supply. It was also evident from the previously acceptable application, that the need for development on this site, such as it is, could be met in a manner sensitive to the AONB. As such, he felt that there were no clear or compelling reasons to depart from national or local guidance by permitting the application. 

In summary, he requested that Councillors be mindful of the robust planning reasons for refusal, the strength of local objection from residents, the objection from the Parish Council, and the objection from external agencies including the CPRE when reaching a decision. He highlighted that the AONB is one of this town’s most precious resources, enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

Member debate

BF:  Noted that the applicant already had permission and this application was just for a different scheme. He agreed with the comments of Councillor Savage and Mr Maloney. He felt that there was so little AONB in the town and as evidenced by the Council’s decision in Local Plan and as per national legislation they have a duty to respect and look after it.  He further acknowledged that the application doesn’t contribute to the five year land supply and is not in keeping with its surroundings. 

PB:  Felt that it was a fantastic scheme which combined traditional and contemporary design out of redundant buildings.  Was originally minded to support, however, having heard the points made by speakers agreed that the scheme was unacceptable and too big and felt that the applicant should go back to the previous scheme and retain the original building. Whilst he did not feel the existing building was particularly attractive, he reasoned that it was made out of Cotswold stone and appropriate in scale.  He noted that the officer recommendation was to permit, however, felt on-balance there were several reasons for refusal, including over-development, the fact that it was not in keeping with the surrounding area and the fact it doesn’t respect the AONB, the locality, and the other buildings around it.

RH:  Agreed with the points raised by BF and PB.

JP:  On planning view had been impressed with the craftsmanship that had been put into the existing farm buildings, but was not impressed with the quality of the farmhouse; and felt that if the farmhouse remained, it would be to the detriment of the current scheme.  However, agreed with PB that the proposal is not acceptable in the AONB and would not support the application.

GD, in response:

-          Respected and appreciated Members comments, and conceded that his recommendation was an on-balance decision. He highlighted that there was extant permission to convert the barn, stable and farmhouse, and everyone was satisfied with the proposed conversion;

-          Noted that the proposal would not increase the number of homes on the site.  He confirmed that the proposed new building would be 50 sq metres bigger than the existing farmhouse, but highlighted that there are no policies regarding how big replacements in AONB can be or taking on board how it affects the landscape setting.  He explained that given the mix of dwellings on site, and the materials on site and in the vicinity, officers felt that the design was acceptable and would sit well in the site;

-          Confirmed that the replacement farmhouse was designed to make the flow of the site better as there were pinch points. He reported that there were concerns that although the house was lived in, it was not of a good standard with regards to insulation and flooding and that by removing the farmhouse and introducing a new dwelling, the  site would work and flow better.

-          Confirmed that the building in discussion was a stable building for Glenfall Farm which was converted to a dwelling in 1976 for the equestrian business.

PB:  Did not agree with the argument regarding the site flow as felt that they could alternate the existing footprint and didn’t feel such a big scheme was necessary.  He was also disappointed that there were no comments from the Architects Panel.

SC:  Questioned whether, if permission was refused, the applicant would revert back to the previous proposal?

GD, in response:

-          From looking at the drawing of the approved site plan, he advised that traffic would come up the left hand side and into the site that way.  However, there were concerns that this could cause problems for residents and visitors, and that replacing the farmhouse would improve the flow.

GB:  Queried whether PB was proposing refusal on the grounds of overdevelopment.

PB:  Confirmed that he would suggest refusal on policies SD6, SD7 and paragraph 172 of the NPPF with regards to the impact on the AONB, over development, and design.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

4 in support

8 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

Vote on PB’s move to refuse JCS policies SD6 and SD7, and Paragraph 172 of the NPPF

9 in support

0 in objection

4 abstentions

REFUSE