Agenda item

Planning application documents

Listed building application documents  

Councillor Baker left the chamber.

The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance introduced the report as published.  He noted that a recommendation to refuse had been issued primarily due the size of the extension which would compete visually with the listed building and not be subservient to it. Two further reasons for refusal related to insufficient details regarding drainage and a lack of financial contribution towards the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).  He noted that a water management proposal has been submitted but there has not been adequate time to review this proposal, and a signed unilateral has been received for the SAC but the legal team have not had time to review and the financial contribution has not yet cleared.  He explained that should members be minded to grant permission the final resolution of these two issues could be delegated to officers.

There were two public speakers on the item; the agent on behalf of the applicant and a Ward Member.

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

-       The applicants have employed a team of highly experienced individuals, including an alternative energy expert, an award-winning architect and a heritage expert, to sensitively restore Glenfall House to it’s original residential use and put it on a sustainable footing.

-       They have worked with officers at every stage and listened to feedback but this has been a protracted and challenging process, particularly due to the changes in Conservation Officers.

-       The main house improvements, garden improvements, demolition of later additions, principle of development and the garage and store have all been agreed. 

-       Four different versions of the proposed new outbuildings have been designed which incorporate the opinion of changing officers’ but agreement has not been reached.  The first two officers believed that the existing arrangement already competed with the listed building.  The new design has a smaller footprint than the main house and existing outbuildings, has been reduced to one and a half storeys, and in the opinion of the heritage expert is in proportion to the main house.

-       Officers were asked to consider whether the benefits of architectural and visual cohesion, enhancement of the heritage asset, sustainability, landscape, ecology and tourism gains balance out the harm of the proposal submitted as identified in the report.

Councillor Day as Ward Member addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The application will help preserve and enhance Glenfall House and the income from the holiday lets will help fund the maintaining of the listed property.

-       The 5 holiday lets will have a profitable impact to Cheltenham’s economy, creating jobs and tourist spending without a loss of residential properties.

-       Further benefits include the addition of green measures, a 22% habitat biodiversity gain, a 264% hedgerow gain, insect -friendly lighting, and an agreed financial contribution to mitigate any impact on the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC.

-       Most public comments have been supportive, including from a member of family who previously owned the property.

-       The proposed use will be less disruptive to local residents than the current permitted use as a hotel.

-       The applicants have worked on the application for 2 years with the input of the previous Conservation Officer before their departure, since then 2 contractors have been employed.  The current Conservation Officer has not visited the site and their comments and recommendations are the result of a desktop review.  Positive feedback on the proposals were received from the previous 2 Conservation Officers, which shows the subjective nature of the judgement.

-       Having visited the site the proposals are far superior to the existing, dilapidated structures.  The public benefits outweigh the perceived harm of the proposals.

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

-       The conversion of the main house back into a residential property means the physical and historic fabric will be in a better state as a heritage asset.  The concerns raised by the Conservation Officer relate to the entire proposed rear structure and the impact of this setting on the main house.

-       The issues relating to the drainage and the unilateral undertaking are very close to being resolved, so it is suggested that these two issues be delegated to officers to resolve prior to permission being granted, if the committee is minded to approve the application.

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

-       The issues raised are balanced against the benefits to the main house and there is a risk of the main building falling into a worse state of repair if permission is not granted. 

-       The proposals will lead to an improvement in landscaping, with the extension not visible from the better views of Glenfall House from the gardens and front courtyard.

-       Strong economic and ecological reasons for approval.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to refuse:

For: 1

Against: 7

Abstentions: 0

A motion was submitted by Councillor Wheeler that the full application and the listed building concern application be moved contrary to officer recommendation on the basis that the proposed development, including the demolition of the existing outbuildings and construction of new buildings resulting in less than substantial harm to heritage assets.  This harm being outweighed by the significant public benefits, including enhancement of the main listed building, removal of harmful later additions, reinstatement of original features, creation of a more rational layout that enhances the setting of the listed building, the biodiversity net gain in habitats and hedgerows.  Further that the issues raised in relation to insufficient surface water drainage strategy and lack of mitigation for recreational pressure on the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC be delegated to officers for resolution.  That subject to these resolutions permission be granted.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Bamford.

The Planning Officer confirmed that a clear direction had been recommended.  He recommended that permission be granted with a set of conditions to be agreed between the case officer, the chair and the vice chair.  For example, in relation to materials and holiday occupation terms.

The committee voted on the motion and the resolution to approve the application subject to the appropriate conditions to be delegated to officers in consultation with the chair and/or vice chair for the relevant matters which would include but not be limited to things such as holiday accommodation, materials, landscaping, lighting, drainage, Cotswold Beechwood SAC mitigation, and implementation of proposed sustainability measures.

The matter then went to the vote on the motion and resolution:

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Permitted subject to conditions outlined in the resolution.

Councillor Baker returned to the Chamber.