Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Officer introduction:

VH explained that the  application site relates to land associated with West Lodge on Cold Pool Lane, currently occupied by a large single-storey outbuilding used for MOTs and car repairs.  The site is  outside the PUA, in the greenbelt.  The proposal is to replace the single-storey outbuilding with a single-storey dwelling and the recommendation is to  approve, subject to conditions   There have been some neighbour concerns about notification of the application -  the two adjacent landowners were informed by letter and a site notice was placed on Cold Pool Lane as this is the address to which application is registered.  It is at committee at the request of Cllr McKinlay.

Public Speaking:

Sarah Bamford, neighbour, in objection

Is Chair of Up Hatherley Parish Council, and at the meeting to represent the residents of Sunnyfield Lane who are shocked and concerned about the application and the lack of consultation.  Strongly urges the committee to reject the application.  Sunnyfield Lane is narrow and quiet, surrounded by farmland, with properties intermittently fronting the lane. It is in  the greenbelt, and infill will have a massive effect, dramatically changing its character.  No new houses have been built for 60 years, and several applications have been refused, one of which went to appeal where the inspector determined that in-fill would effective turn a rural setting to a suburban one.  

The officer report focuses on West Lodge and its neighbours on Cold Pool Lane, neglecting its impact on Sunnyfield Lane, where the proposed dwelling will be located.   The report states this is a brownfield site, but it is  clearly greenbelt.  The applicant put up two large sheds without planning permission, and a high fence so nothing could be seen from the lane.  When the Parish Council objected, they were told no action would be taken provided the sheds were for personal use.  The applicant has never sought permission to run a business here and many residents of the lane are unaware of the activity behind the gates. 

The JCS recently re-affirmed that the lane and surrounding fields are a particularly sensitive area of the greenbelt, directing development to more appropriate areas.  The proposed development is right on a blind bend which unexpectedly narrows, regularly forcing vehicles onto the pavement to avoid a collision.  It is unclear how construction vehicles would manoeuvre in and out of the site without causing a significant problem for motorists and pedestrians.

The proposed development will have a serious impact on the local community, and there are other options available to the applicant that would have much less severe impact on the local environment.  Urges Members to reject the application as currently proposed.

Becky Brown, agent, in support

The proposal has generated a lot of interest from local residents and Parish Council representatives.  The applicant would have liked to attend the meeting but is unable to do so; she sends her apologies.  She has confirmed that both the dropped kerb and existing buildings were installed in 2004 on the understanding that planning permission wasn’t required.  The council’s enforcement officer at the time confirmed this following a site visit, reported back to the Parish Council, and closed the enforcement case.  Due to the length of time that has passed since, the buildings have now become lawful, as has their use as a car repair business.  The site is therefore classed as brownfield, albeit in the greenbelt.  Is surprised to hear that neighbours didn’t know what was going on behind the gates, as some local residents and Parish Council members have used the services of RAS Motors.

The Parish Council and residents are concerned that a precedent will be set for further development in the greenbelt, but the specifics of this case are unique, and any other sites would only be policy-compliant if they are also on previously developed land.  The scheme complies with national and local greenbelt policy, because it comprises redevelopment of previously developed land, and would not have a greater impact on the openness of the greenbelt than the existing development.  Is not suggesting it complies with infill policy.

The proposed dwelling is single storey and modest in size, so as to have no additional impact on the openness of the greenbelt compared to the existing development on the site.  The design and materials are unassuming and appropriate for the site and vicinity.  Apart from a large ash, all the existing trees on the site are to be retained, and the trees officer is happy with the scheme.  The new dwelling will utilise the existing site access, currently used for the vehicle repair business, resulting in fewer trips.  Gloucestershire Highways are happy with the scheme.  Being single storey and some distance from neighbouring properties, there are no loss of amenity issues.  The proposal complies with the development plan and, with no material considerations to suggest otherwise, planning permission should be granted.

Cllr McKinlay, in objection

Called this application in to Committee firstly due to concerns from local residents and the Parish Council – its concerns are outlined in the Parish Council submission in Section 4 of the officer report, eloquently outlining their concerns.  Wearing his cabinet member hat, has other concerns with the basis on which officers have recommended the proposal for approval.  The report, from 6.8 onwards,  puts forward an  argument that the proposal is acceptable despite not being in line with JCS because the council does not have a five-year housing land supply – the argument put by this developer and every developer in every case.    At 6.10, it refers to NPPF Paragraph 11, which states that there is a presumption favour of sustainable development where there are no relevant development plan policies or the council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would  significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.   However, the report doesn’t quote from Paragraph 12 of the NPPF which goes on to say something rather different:  that the presumption in favour of sustainable development doesn’t change the statutory status of the development plan, and if a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted.

Officers already stated at Paragraph 6.9 of the report that this application  is in conflict and contrary to the development plan - JCS Policy SD10, and Local Plan Policies GB1 and GB2.  The idea that we should wave it through on the grounds that we have no five-year housing land supply because we haven’t got a plan is nonsense.  We do have a plan, and if the argument is that because we don’t have a five-year land supply we should wave through anything that comes forward, we won’t have a policy, we won’t have a greenbelt protection policy or infill  policy, we won’t have any sort of policy.  According to the report, not having a five-year land supply trumps everything else – this is not true.  Members shouldn’t make a decision tonight based on Paragraph 11 of the NPPF – this would be the same as saying we have no functioning planning policy and could get the council into some considerable difficulties later on.

Turning to the application itself, it is an interesting proposal, sold as being obvious, compliant, and fitting in well.  Having looked at the drawings, it looks like a large cattle shed with bedrooms in it.  The dimensions are interesting - approximately 24m by  7m. This is a huge building, and whether it is appropriate or not, the applicant is trying to pull a fast one in claiming this dwelling on the site of temporary structures without planning permission is somehow approved in planning regulations  - it isn’t.  This is a false argument.

Member debate

RW:  had looked at the officer report and at the objections, but Councillor McKinlay’s speech has taken the  wind out of his sails with a  comprehensive demolition of the proposal and a lot of valid points he had not thought of.  One thing Members should be mindful of is that whilst they may understand that the question of the five-year land supply puts certain obligations on us, they shouldn’t be panicked by it or compelled to make wrong decision.  We are talking about one property off the five-year land supply, and JCS proposals have been designed to provide all the housing requirement we need.  Housing may not be coming forward as fast as we like, but Members shouldn’t be panicked into making decision. 

This is about protecting JCS proposals and the greenbelt, and whether Members are serious about it or just wanting to put it in their election leaflets – this is fundamental.  In this area of greenbelt, there is a  clear defining boundary along distributor road; this application is an infill and could be followed by another and another along Sunnyfield Lane.  There are a number of roads where infill is acceptable in the greenbelt, but Sunnyfield Lane is not such a road.

The question of development on brownfield sites is important;  understands that every application is considered on its merits, but are we saying it is OK to put up a few sheds, leave them there for years, then put up a house on the same site? Even if the footprint is the same as the original sheds, it is an insult to suggest  the impact of the sheds is the same as a house in constant use.  Can see no reason to support this application.

BF:  has read the letters of objection, listened to Councillor McKinlay, the parish councillor and officers.  The buildings on this site have been there for at least ten years with or without planning permission  - and have therefore acquired the right to be there, and the site has consequently become a brownfield site.  Yes, it’s in the greenbelt, but we know as a council that some building takes place in greenbelt; it is not sacrosanct.  This application is replacing   a commercial building with a residential home.  Didn’t like it being compared to a cow shed; it’s true that it would be classed as a big house in the centre of town, but this isn’t the centre of town.  On the principle of developing in the greenbelt, CBC has just acquired a lot of greenbelt land to develop; it will be necessary in the future, and cannot help but think there will be major overhaul of planning laws at some stage.  We must consider every application on its merits.  Prefers a 3-bed house to a garage at this location, and will support the application.  We need housing, and can’t be hypocritical about the greenbelt.

MC:  this is the application before us.  Doesn’t like the design.  Will vote against.

DB:  would like one or two clarifications.   To the highways  officer,  a number of neighbours say this is a dangerous bend, but there is no highways objection?  Also, one letter mentioned a 160-year-old tree with roots which might be affected by the building, although it is located  in the neighbour’s garden.  Would the tree be taken into consideration?   There is also a query about drainage and flooding; would appreciate some more thoughts about that.

SC:  doesn’t object to the house – it is replacing a shed, and is inclined to agree with BF, but RW and Councillor McKinlay have put forward well-made arguments, and it seems that the applicant is taking advantage of process a little bit  - erecting a shed in the hope that no-one notices and then the site becoming a brownfield site.  Would welcome further information about the points made in the letters concerning insufficient notification of neighbours.  What are the rules?  The issue of precedent has also been raised; what are the rules here? 

VH, in response:

-          on the issue of drainage, this would be covered by building control if permitted; there are no details in the application as it stands;

-          regarding trees, the trees officer visited the site and considers the application acceptable, with suggested conditions;

-          regarding precedent,  each application is taken on its own merits;  if further applications are submitted, they will be considered accordingly .  This application is a bit different, as it is a replacement of an existing building, but any future applications would be assessed  at the time;

-          to SC, on the subject of notification of neighbours, the statutory requirement is to notify anyone whose property is adjacent to the site, in this case two landowners, who each received a letter.  A site notice is not a statutory requirement, but the case officer decided to put one up on Cold Pool Lane – the address at which the site is registered. 

CM, in response: 

-          regarding access, the point was made by the planning officer, that there is an existing access, which generates an existing number of  trips.  The new use will generate fewer  trips, and we cannot infer that it would be less safe, using common sense and pragmatism;

-          If there is an existing access, and the intention to generate fewer trips as the result of a planning decision, highways officers will deem it as safe, even if it is currently sub-standard in some capacity.  Because it has operated safely for extended period of time without accidents – a simple way to ensure everyone‘s access to properties with substandard access continues in a safe and suitable way -  this is a considered administration.  If a new access will generate more trips, it will need to come up to standard – we cannot take risk that more trips can be sustained by a sub-standard junction.  This is how highways officers make decisions;

-          This access will be the first off Sunnyfield Lane; all other properties and static home parks generate traffic beyond this access, away from the junction.  Any new trips generated by the proposal will go in and out of the first access on the road.  Highways officers are satisfied access is suitable. 

SW:  this is another case where CBC has been caught out, having missed the sheds being put up and the business operating without permission – we need more officers and manpower, and the public should bear in mind that if they see things  that ‘aren’t right’, they need to tell the council quickly.  Much like RW, felt the rug pulled from under him when AM spoke.  Originally thought that as that the site was already occupied by  ramshackle sheds and the owner running a garage of sorts, it was not a particularly nice situation but one that has been going on for some years and we can’t do anything about it.  If we could say this is misuse of land in the greenbelt and require the applicant to stop, would go with that  - but we can’t.  The choice is to accept what is being proposed – which is not beautiful – or to allow what is currently going on at the site to continue -  which gives more cause for concern.  We shouldn’t just say this is better than what is there now.  Has not decided yet.

Regarding neighbour notification, CBC seems to have  missed a trick here too.  If they are selected by simply looking at addresses, this isn’t good enough.  Officers should look at a map, draw a circle round the application site to ascertain who might be affected.  Cold Pool Lane will not be not affected by this application, but Sunnyfield Lane will.  This isn’t the first  time this issue has been reported  – where the people most affected have not been notified.  We should get to grips with this in future

BF:  regarding notification, is not a parish councillor but goes to parish council meetings, and understands that they are  notified of every planning application in the parish.  Maybe they could have talked to their parishioners more.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

5 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT