Agenda item

Officer introduction

JS:  Introduced the application for the demolition of the existing house, and construction of eight self-build dwellings.  He confirmed that it was at committee at the request of Councillor Babbage, due to concerns about the impact on the AONB.  The recommendation is to permit for the reasons as set out in the officer report.

Mr Cassidy, in support

Advised that he owns and lives at Cromwell Court, he explained that he and his wife had a long held ambition to build their own home and building out one of the new homes provided a great opportunity for them to fulfil this ambition. He highlighted that they had great affection for the AONB and as such strived to develop a scheme that is to an architecturally high standard, interesting, unique and sympathetic to the AONB.

He advised that the scheme was landscape led and they had employed a team of experts with significant experience and understanding of working in sensitive landscape locations. Similarly, the design was led by a local landscape architect with extensive experience of working with the AONB board. He highlighted that the sensitive design also extends to the retention and enhancement of existing trees which would be maintained through a long-term management plan. The trees would also assist the site blend with the wider AONB and it was in their interest to protect them in the long-term.

He felt that the site could clearly accommodate a number of homes. The planning officer’s report acknowledges the benefits of introducing additional homes at the site and how this is an efficient use of existing residential and brownfield land. He highlighted that these would be self-build homes which would give other likeminded self-builders the opportunity to realise their own ambitions. He noted that the council had a duty to consent to self-build plots and felt this scheme helped the council meet this requirement.

He explained that the proposal had a central design theme which was key to ensuring the site would be developed sensitively; hence the submission of an application for full planning permission with lots of detail. He highlighted that other self-builders would need to comply with the consented plans to ensure the designs didn’t change, and acknowledged that as owners of the site they had control over the contracts of sale. He advised that they had had conversations with many people interested in the units as proposed and was confident that they would be built as shown.

He felt it significant that the proposal had local support, with 75 letters of support, including four from immediate neighbours. He noted that the Parish Council also had no objections. Given the positive nature of the officer’s report, he felt there was clearly a strong planning justification in support of the proposal.  

Councillor Savage, in objection

Explained that he and Cllr Babbage had referred the application to committee given the level of public interest and the sensitive nature of the application site. He noted that the current building occupying the site is out of keeping with the local area, and acknowledged that the many responses to consulted comments were indeed positive, including from the Architect’s Panel and the public. He was, however, mindful of the comments from the Cotswold Conservation Board and the CPRE included in the officer’s report. He was concerned that this development, if permitted, would potentially make subsequent applications in this part of the AONB difficult to refuse.

Member debate:

BF:  Noted that paragraph 172 of the NPPF gives great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and felt that eight buildings would never enhance it. He acknowledged that the dwelling currently there was not the most attractive but had approval for conversion to eight flats already. He noted that whether the applicant built houses or flats, there would be no gain against the five-year land supply, however, felt that with eight separate self-build houses, the landscape would be altered irreversibly. He further stressed that the construction period would cause chaos with up to 100 contractors at any one time. He also had concerns that the individual applicants could come back with altered plans, which could harm the AONB even more.

He felt that the applicant had two alternatives, to continue with the eight flats, which would cause less damage to the landscape, or demolish the existing house and build one dwelling in its place.  He noted that there were existing problems at Cromwell Court, including outstanding enforcement issues concerning the erection of a 2m fence and gates, and trees cleared out without planning permission. Whilst he acknowledged that these issues were not material to the application, he felt it showed the applicant’s disregard for planning law.  He was minded to refuse on the same grounds as used for the previous application.

DB:  Liked the scheme, however, felt it important to protect the AONB and was moved by the comments of the Cotswold Conservation Board.  She acknowledged their comments regarding NPPF Paragraph 172 and reasoned that there were no exceptional circumstances here to agree to the scheme. She noted that the applicant already had permission for eight flats and felt the application should be refused.

PM: Acknowledged that as stated in the officer report, Cromwell Court is a unique brownfield site, and allowing eight dwellings here wouldn’t encourage other landowners to do same.  He requested assurance that while Cromwell Court may be classed as brownfield, the same won’t apply to other parts of Greenway Lane as this could potentially be very dangerous, particularly given the AONB has the highest level of sensitivity.

He also had concerns regarding the surface run-off water from Harp Hill. He noted that the report had mentioned a culvert and questioned whether a contour map was available.  With regards to Hewlett Reservoir, he questioned where all the water was coming from and noted that the applicant had said this would be detailed in the contracts. However, he was concerned that this would be too big an area to be covered by conditions if the scheme were to be permitted. He had further concerns about the sedum roofs as he noted they often turned brown and suggested that the water run-off be caught by the roofs. Another consideration was the fact that the removal of trees and addition of buildings would increase run-off down Greenway Lane. He had further concerns about how refuse collectors would access the properties and he suggested a proper robust road was needed, to allow ambulances etc. to get to the top.

KH:  Felt that the scheme was exciting and noted that it was rare to be presented with a scheme of this quality and kind.  He felt that the existing building had little to no merit and was unattractive.  In his opinion, sub-dividing the existing house into eight units would be a waste of effort and time and felt that the scheme before them was much more interesting, and would provide far greater amenity to residents. He acknowledged that it is a brownfield site and he had no problem with the principal of building more units on the site as he felt it could clearly accommodate eight units, if not more. He approved of the architecture and felt it was a bold scheme, sensitive, and of high quality.  He did, however, have slight concerns that as all eight dwellings were self-build, during the building process self-builders may want to deviate in materials, design code and theme. As such, he questioned whether they were able to place conditions on the application to ensure they were built as presented.

BF:  He did not consider this to be a brownfield site, he reasoned that one dwelling in a large garden doesn’t make the whole site brownfield. In his opinion, brownfield meant something which had been built on before.  He noted that up to two years ago, a lot of woodland hid Cromwell Court from the road, however, the trees had now been taken down and the area was now extremely open. He cited paragraphs 170 and 172 of the NPPF which state that development should enhance the AONB and he felt that building on it did not enhance it. He further noted that swimming pools and multiple cars per household were not environmentally friendly.

PB:  Stressed that Cheltenham’s surroundings and setting within the AONB were what made it special and that any sites on its edge were extremely sensitive.  He felt they needed to be resolute, to avoid setting a precedent.  He also had concerns about the site being deemed as brownfield. Whilst he accepted that it was a great scheme, he felt that protecting the town and the AONB was of greater importance.  He noted that the scheme would not provide additional housing and felt it important they abide by the Cotswold AONB management plan. He suggested that Policy CE12 of the management plan - development priorities and evidence of need - be used as a refusal reason.  He felt that the brownfield site argument referred to in paragraph 117 of the NPPF gave compelling reasons not to support.  He explained that he was minded to propose refusal on JCS Policy SD7 10, Policy CE12 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan, and paragraphs 170, 172 and 117 of the NPPF.

DP:  Was mindful that refusing against officer advice and disregarding previously legal activity could result in a successful appeal against the council.

JS, in response: 

-          Noted that there was evidently a lot of concern about the AONB and impact of the proposed development upon it.  It is a judgement for individuals to make as to whether it is harmful or not;

-          With regards to concerns about whether the site should be considered as brownfield or not, he confirmed that this is a court of appeal decision that is applicable country wide and not for the council to decide.  He explained that there is a loophole in the definition of previously-developed land in the NPPF as it excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens if they are not situated in a built-up area;

-          With regards to suggestions that the same could apply to any large country estate, he explained that it would only apply to the residential curtilage, and would not open floodgates in that sense.  In this site, every part of the red line is the garden of Cromwell Court; the site has development on it, and is therefore classed as previously developed, on account of it not being in a built- up area. 

-          Regarding the bins, he confirmed that the simple site layout shows one road in, one road out, which is quite common for housing developments of this size. He explained that residents wouldn’t have to take bins down to end of Greenway Lane and the access road into the site allows for vehicle turning. 

-          In response to concerns about the weight of the refuse truck, he confirmed that they would just go up main service road, not each drive;

-          Regarding concerns about the built houses not resembling the drawings, he explained this is a full application, not an outline, and confirmed that the houses would have to be built in line with approved drawings.  There is a design code for self-builders to adhere to and it has to be agreed first as a basic premise.

SC:  Felt that the scheme proposed was better than the application for eight flats, in his opinion it was more elegant, and would enhance the neighbourhood better than a converted mock-Tudor house. However, he had concerns that if the present application leaves a lot of undeveloped land on the site, the applicant would come back with further applications in the future. He agreed that if permitted, the scheme would need to be closely conditioned to make sure it was built like the plan.  He had further concerns about setting a precedent for similar applications within the AONB.

PM:  If the committee were minded to permit, he suggested a condition be applied to ensure the access for refuse trucks was up to standard. He questioned whether the surface water run-off could be managed as part of an elegant eco-friendly design?

JS, in response: 

-          Confirmed that there was a condition for sustainable drainage on site, and the green roofs would help in that regard.

-          Ensuring the access road was suitable for UBICO and other heavy vehicles was not a particular problem.

BF:  Reminded Members that the principal of development of the site for eight dwellings had been agreed, however, the applicant now wanted to build eight totally different dwellings which could change in design. He acknowledged that this would require a further application but felt that the precedent would be set.  

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support [including Chairman’s casting vote]

7 in objection

PERMIT