Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were 3 speakers on the item: an objector, the applicant and the Ward Councillor.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The representative for the residents of Springfield Close who object to this application to build on our green open space.

-       Not afforded the same considerations as new developments where a green space is a feature.

-       The green space is an integral part of the Close and before any planning application was made the residents had applied for village green status.

-       If the building is allowed the valuable amenity will be lost that we have benefited from for over 60 years. It has been used to hold parties, sports days, picnics and celebrations such as Queens Jubilee.

-       It is only safe green space in the Reddings and is a haven for local families and residents it is of public interest to the whole community. It is a peaceful retreat that shouldn’t be taken from the residents and used as profit.

-       If permission is granted would want the removal of permitted development rights, as there would be nothing to stop the owner from applying to extend the property or add an external garage.

-        If planning is granted the lack of street parking will be further strained, as it is emergency vehicles have struggled to get through the Close as well as refuse lorries.

-       The green has alleyways on both sides, which are frequently used. The building will create a blind spot to oncoming traffic and would be a safety hazard. In January the Highways commission rejected the proposal, why is has it now been accepted when only minimal changes have been made.

-       This application plan does not fit in with the layout of the Close as they are semi-detached and terraced houses.

The agent on behalf of the applicant then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Have been working with the planning officer and the scheme has been through many changes to meet the councils requirements including change in position, reduction in scale and amendments to the design.

-       The proposed building is set behind building lines of the terraced houses, the height, width and depth of the house is similar to the neighbouring properties. The design of the windows and doors are also similar to neighbouring properties.

-       The footprint of the house will take 15% of the green. It is noted that there has been concerns about loss open green space. Most of the green space will remain undeveloped to protect the character and views  of the local area. The existing site pass will be retained.

-       There is already a detached house in the area which had planning permission approved in 2008.

-       The proposal has been reduced in number and scale and would be set away from adjoining properties. The proposed windows on the first floor will be obscured glazed, therefore there will be limited impact to neighbours amenity.

-       There will be two parking spaces and dropped kerb at the proposed building, which was accepted by the highways officer.

-       Would enter a section 106 to make a financial contribution to protect Beechwood a special area of conservation.

-       The scheme would contribute an additional dwelling to Cheltenham’s housing needs, overall the scheme will respect the existing character and appearance of the surrounding area and would be acceptable in terms of principal, location, massing, design and amenity. The scheme is in line with the relevant policies.

Councillor Collins as local ward member then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       If this is allowed it will deprive the local community of the only piece of green open space for some distance.

-       It goes against the councils own policy BG1 on the Cotswold Beechwood and also against Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), and the councils SPD.

-       The Councils policy on new developments is to create vibrant open green spaces, why deprive this community of theirs.

-       The community has enjoyed this open space for decades, and is well used. It is also subject to an application for Village Green Status that has been in place for almost a year now.

-       The design itself is awful and is completely different to the surrounding buildings and therefore does not comply with section 12 of the NPPF or planning policy D1 as it does not respect the existing neighbouring properties.

-       Highways strongly objected to an earlier version of this application but now see this one as acceptable. Refuse and emergency vehicles already struggle to access the Close. There has been damage to vehicles without introducing more cars and a significant blind spot.

-       The application should be refused on policies BG1, SD8, SD9 and SD14.

The matter then went to Member questions, the responses were as follows:

-       Planning officer aware of the application for Village Green Status which is with Gloucestershire County Council it is a lengthy process and has been with them for a year and CBC has had no notification of it. The planning application is in now and needs to be determined as it has been submitted. The land isn’t protected currently and a pending application for Village Green Status is not sufficient to protect the land and it is not protected in any other way. There is no policy in the local plan or in the JCS specifically about Village Green Status.

-       The legal officer confirmed that the village green process is separate from the planning process and through a different body in Gloucestershire County Council and though CBC may be a consultee for that. It has no material consideration today it is the planning application that is before you.

-       The legal officer confirmed that the land ownership of the remaining green space is a private law matter and outside the scope of planning.

-       Permitted development rights have been removed for only the parts that were considered harmful to the site, such as erection of a fence, removal of permitted rights for a dormer window and restrictions on further windows. Would be unable to do a side extension as the regulations would not allow it.

-       The footprint of building is reasonably modest for built development but would need to take into account that there would be a garden to the rear and parking at the front. Have attached a condition regarding further landscaping. Officers have tried to retain the openness of the site, however can’t confirm that residents would be able to use the remaining green space as this would still be in private ownership.

-       The scheme has changed significantly, the objection from highways was when the scheme was previously for two dwellings, both with access and parking which would have been closer to the bend in the road. This scheme was withdrawn for number of reasons and now with this scheme which is acceptable to highways.

-       The legal officer explained that deferral of the planning application would need to be within a reasonable amount of time as the applicant have appeal rights and we have no indication of when the village green status will be decided. It is not fair on the applicant and it is not a relevant planning matter before the committee.

-       Even if the green space was adopted as a village green there is no planning policy to take this into consideration and therefore no planning policy reasons to refuse the application based on these grounds.

-       There may have been some confusion on the ownership of the land as it seems the council have been maintaining the green from the representations of the local residents. It is ultimately private land if the council still cuts grass it seems unlikely they would object however, maintenance is the responsibility of the land owner.

-       Planning officer confirmed that they would not recommend to permit a planning application if they thought the scheme wasn’t acceptable in policy. Obviously some areas are subjective, people can disagree over design but in terms of planning policy as set out in the report it cannot be refused.

-       The biodiversity net gain requirement came in after this application was submitted and therefore cannot be imposed.

-       The relevant planning policies that would be relevant to this application are set out in section 3 of the officer report and is discussed and referred to throughout. SD8 would not be applicable to this application as it relates to heritage assets and conservation.

-       The legal officer explained that there are tests as to what is a valid planning condition which is to make the application acceptable on planning terms. To demolish a building if the green it was built on gained village green status is a private matter and would not satisfy the test for a planning condition.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were raised:

-       It is a fundamental loss of amenity as it is used by the whole neighbourhood and it is the only green space in the area.

-       It may have been used as a green but is now in private ownership and we have a planning application that needs to be decided on which has an expiry of 26^th May this year, if not decided the applicant could use non determination which would mean the planning inspectorate would decide.

-       Builders are encouraged by councils and government to buy land and build houses as they are needed. We are dreadfully short of housing in this town.

-       The parking issues are not the landowners fault, as parking on the bend is responsibility of the car owner and the property will have two parking spaces.

-       The green may get village green status but that is in the future at this current time it does not and we need to make a decision on this application. It is difficult to find any planning policy reason to refuse this application.

-       The policies are very clear and the officer recommendation is to permit. We don’t have a five year land supply in this town and we know that at appeal inspectors regard this as an important factor.

-       There will still be a green space there and conditions to protect that from being hidden by walls or fences. The planning officers have done everything possible to mitigate that and there is no good planning reasons for refusing.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

For: 9

Abstain: 2