Agenda item

Officer introduction

DO introduced the application for demolition of existing structures and replacement with a self-build dwelling, at Committee because there has been an objection from the Civic Society.  The site is accessed from Greenway Lane, with the access lane serving two existing properties and a public right of way to the east, and has several small farm buildings in state of disrepair.  The proposed two-storey dwelling will be orientated to the east, with a modest second storey, reduced in size from the original submission following comments from the landscape architect; the upper floor is smaller than the ground floor.  The site is situated towards the bottom of the valley, and its low position will minimise the impact on the AONB.  It will be constructed from stone and timber, cladding and render, with a green roof, and a number of conditions are included.  The key issues are the AONB, impact on neighbours, and biodiversity (bats and badgers), with the recommendation to approve subject to conditions.

Public Speaking

Mrs Wronska, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Is deeply connected to this beautiful countryside, coming here as a five-year-old child, and raising her children here.  A quote on the CBC website states that the council’s preferred approach to future development will be founded on impartial, independent consultants’ reviews, and was initially informed that consideration of the application would be largely guided by landscape consultant’s expert report.  Stuart Ryder’s report on the LVIA is an excellent assessment, impartial, thorough, articulate, detailed and dispassionate - agrees whole-heartedly with his views.  Some key points are that the site is outside the PUA and entirely in the AONB, not on its boundaries as suggested.  The proposed building is not appropriate in this semi-rural setting, and a domestic residence will alter its entire character – it is too large, too modern, and not in keeping.  It will not enhance, but rather have an adverse effect on the landscape, and users of the footpath will be very affected.  Adverse effects include loss of openness and a change to the landscape character.  Both the landscape and the visual change in the local area conflict with JCS Policy SD7, neither conserving or enhancing the nationally designated beauty of the area.   It is also at odds with the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-23, and may set a precedent for further attempts to develop in this lovely rural location, Arguably, reconstruction of the stables or demolition and restoration of grass would more readily enhance the site.  On a personal note, the proposed dwelling will be visible from all the downstairs living areas, as well as upstairs, not just the upstairs as suggested and will neither enhance or be the rural AONB view as it has been for many years.  Has felt compelled to speak as together with neighbours and friends is passionate to maintain the integrity of this lovely area.

Becky Brown, agent, in support

Members have heard in the officer’s presentation, that the principle of development here is acceptable – the site is outside the PUA, and as the council cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply, the tilted balance set out in the NPPF is engaged, which states that permission should be granted unless policies which seek to protect areas of importance set out clear reasons not to, or if the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits.  As set out in the report, there are no technical objections on highways or ecological grounds, or objection from the parish council.    Therefore, the key issue is balancing the potential harm to the AONB on the one hand with the benefits of the proposal on the other.  On planning view, Members will have seen that the site is currently occupied by  ramshackle concrete and tin buildings which don’t conserve or enhance the landscape or scenic beauty of the AONB  The proposed dwelling is a high-quality, contemporary design, mindful of its situation on the edge of the urban area.  It has been designed by local architect Coombes Everitt in conjunction with local landscape architect MHP Design, both based in Cheltenham.  After some initial concern about harm to landscape character, the applicant’s consultants have worked closely with the planning officer to address these concerns, reducing the size of the dwelling, and including a comprehensive landscaping  scheme.  Officers are now satisfied there will be no adverse impact on the landscape character and scenic beauty of the AONB.  Furthermore, a comprehensive ecological appraisal has been undertaken and submitted, which has not identified any ecological reason to refuse.  In addition, it is the applicant’s intention to undertake mitigation measures recommended  by installing bird boxes and bat tubes.  Finally, the proposal will have no impact on the amenity of neighbours, due to the distances between the properties. 

 Member debate

MC:  listening to both speakers and looking at the floor plan, notes this is a large single dwelling, which appears to have five bedrooms on the lower floor, and three on the upper – what is the intention here?  Is a self-contained area planned for upstairs?  There is currently no  kitchen area.  Can officers provide clarification?

BF:  it is interesting that one of main criteria from the agent is the lack of a 5-year land supply.  Just down the road, the Oakhurst Rise development was dismissed at appeal, with the last paragraph of the Inspector’s decision attaching limited weight to the lack of a 5-year land supply as the Cheltenham Plan is likely to be adopted within five years.  An application for eight houses was recently permitted at Cromwell Court, and there will soon be an application for building houses in the AONB at Oakley Farm.  Recently asked planning officers how much AONB there is in the borough, how much is developed, and how much looks likely to be developed.  Was informed that there is 4 sq miles of AONB, one-fifth of the borough, and one building in a field categorises it as developed, even if the building has been there for a number of years with no record of planning permission.  We are losing our AONB, and even though this might be a rough area of stinging nettles and brambles, it still provides an open view, habitat for wildlife etc.  This proposal will have an impact on the area – cars coming and going,  rubbish collection, delivery vans etc - and there are enough grounds to say no. May move to refuse but will listen to what others say first.

DO, in response: 

-       the plan shows five bedrooms, two on the lower floor and three on the upper.  If  there  was any desire to split the property in two, another application would be needed. 

SW:  was originally tempted to think of this as under-development, but this is the AONB, and we need to consider protection.  What is there at the moment is absolutely appalling;   would love to be able to afford a house like that proposed, or the houses from where the objectors are looking at it - would give his eye teeth to have a view like this,  with or without this building.  The proposed dwelling is a very nice building, and will be hidden by the beautiful oak tree behind it.  Regarding the three criteria highlighted by the officer:   cannot comment on biodiversity, but we are told it’s fine; impact on neighbours – this will be improvement if anything; and it is appropriate development in the AONB – if this is refused, all other houses in AONB should be demolished and grassed over.  This is an appropriate building, and can’t see any reason to  refuse – it works very nicely.

PB:  this is a difficult application.  It is a fantastically designed house, massive, with  five bedrooms, swimming pool, gym etc.  If the applicant has worked hard to reduce size,  how big was it before? Walking down the footpath, there is no question that it will have impact on people walking through the AONB on a well-used footpath, and someone has allowed the property on this land to become derelict and eyesore.  Can see no reason to allow this and cannot support it.  It is inappropriate in the AONB, and the scale is crazy.  The landscape report is brilliant, a very good assessment  It’s a shame it’s still not acceptable after the applicant has taken the revisions on board, but this is a really big scheme in a most sensitive area, on a well-used footpath.  Cannot support it.

BF:  at Monday’s Council meeting, members discussed and voted on the Local Plan. The 5-year land supply issue was dealt with by the inspector on the Oakhurst Rise appeal.  The AONB has a lot or protection, sufficient to protect this site.  There are quarries and gravel pits in the AONB, but not housing - housing brings people.  The AONB is a  natural thing.  Agrees with PB

JP:  is entirely in favour of PB’s stand.  Yes, it is a well-designed proposal – a beautiful, large, thoughtful, typical modern Cheltenham house - but it should not be in AONB.  There is no justification, no special circumstances.  The derelict buildings on the site are not attractive but they are part of the history of the land.  Cannot support the application.

GB:  there has been mention of refusal but will take the substantive vote first. Relevant grounds will be needed if there is a move to refuse.

Vote in favour of permit

4 in support

7 in objection

3 abstentions

Not carried

PB:  the grounds for refusal are in the report  - NPPF 172, JCS SD7 and SD6    

DO, in response: 

-       refusal reasons can be finessed after the meeting with the Chair and Vice-Chair, if Members agree;

-       to sum up, Members are concerned with the negative impact on the public right of way, the mass, form and scale which does not conserve or enhance the AONB, not in accordance with NPPF 172 and SD7 of JCS 

Vote on PB move to refuse for the reasons listed above

8 in support

2 in objection

4 abstentions

REFUSE