Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector, and the applicant.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Addressing the Committee on behalf of a group of objectors. They raised concerns that they had had inadequate time to respond and believe the process is unfair. As they only received the officer’s report and recommendation on Friday, they had fewer than five working days to review it so had been unable to respond meaningfully to the report due to work and family commitments.As objectors they have not been provided with comparable access to information and discussion as that granted to the applicant throughout the process, as reflected in the applicant having months of pre-application discussions and throughout the consultation period. This means there is not a level playing field for objectors.

-       Policy SD9 requires a 10% biodiversity net gain, but the officer’s report confirms that there will be a 39.7% net loss of habitat units. No formal confirmed mitigation has been identified, and no clear plan is included. They asked that the application does not proceed until a deliverable biodiversity gain plan is secured.

-       The officer report calling this underutilised land is deceiving. It was a private garden until developers had trees removed and building contractors dug the surface garden into a central mound, covering debris from the extension at 151 Prestbury Road. If accepted this sets a precedent that anyone with a garden large enough could class it as underutilised land and build on it regardless of character, impact or infrastructure. It undermines Cheltenham’s Garden Land SPD and policy D1 on overdevelopment. The dwellings footprint, closeness to neighbours, and overbearing presence were all acknowledged in the report, yet the application was still recommended for approval, directly contradicting the spirit of local policy and guidance.

-       Residents have raised concerns around loss of local amenity through overshadowing, privacy loss, and glare from solar panels – all in breach of policies D1 and SL1. No daylight/sunlight assessment has been provided.

-       The site plan inaccurately includes the house and front garden of 151 Prestbury Road, misleading Members about the development’s scale and context.

-       Concerns were raised about highway safety due to the plan’s limited turning room, in breach of policy INF1 which mandates safe access and suitable parking. Recent comments from the Highway Safety consultant raised that there are conflicts with original plans submitted for 151 Prestbury Road, which have not been addressed.

-       The modern character of the design and materials chosen do not align with the Edwardian context in conflict with policy D1 and SD4, which stresses the need for contextual respect. The modern proposal is incongruous with surrounding properties. Maybelle is cited as a recent development precedent, but this property does not have windows overlooking neighbouring properties on three sides.

-       The public have submitted significant evidence, supporting videos and photos across the consultation periods. They have no assurance that Members or officers have been able to review all of those.

-       They are also concerned that the applicant has made private offers of new fencing. Whilst the boundary between 149 and 151 Prestbury Road did benefit from a new fence in the process the boundary was altered. Photo evidence of this change was provided to officers. In the case of 153 Prestbury Road, an offer of land exchange was also made for the use of their garage as a suggested mitigation to one objection.

-       Following a party at 151 Prestbury Road over the weekend, neighbours are concerned that this is being used as an unregulated house of multiple occupation (HMO). Concerns that this and the new dwelling may both become unregulated HMOs have not been addressed.

-       In conclusion the application fails to meet key planning policies: D1 (poor design), SL1 (harm to residential amenity), INF1 (unsafe access), and SD9 (biodiversity net loss). From a personal perspective this process has taken its toll from the way the application has been handled. There have been multiple retrospective design changes during the process that have not been made clear or transparent. This has damaged the peace and quality of life of residents, and if this development goes ahead several longstanding residents have expressed that they will move.

The applicant addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       The proposed development is in Cheltenham’s principal urban area. There are other garden developments in the area, such as Maybelle and the Coach House. The application should be supported as it aligns with the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) SD10 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for sustainable development in a well-connected location.

-       Since the first planning refusal, the applicant has worked closely with the planning team as recommended in the pre-application planning process to ensure the refusal reasons raised have been addressed. This has resulted in a reduction of height to a single storey dwelling, moved further from the neighbouring boundaries, and updated to red brick design keeping with surrounding buildings. The applicants have reviewed the design against the BRE 2009 standards for daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing and privacy standards to confirm they have been met.

-       The site coverage is only 22% of the plot. This is better than a lot of other planning approvals in the areas around Prestbury Road which take up 40% of the plot. Similarly, the proposal provides 200sqm of private amenity space, significantly above the average of 70-80sqm for local developments. Some garden developments on Prestbury Road have only 20-40sqm. The building is centrally located on the plot to try to further avoid overbearing impact or loss of light. Fencing and landscaping will help assure additional privacy.

-       The building will improve the current street scene as it will be replacing an overgrown site and an old garage with an asbestos roof.

-       In terms of landscaping, some trees were lawfully removed in 2013 to help with sunlight, daylight and overshadowing. Whilst some people were unhappy with the change there have also been positive comments from neighbours due to improved sunlight, daylight and satellite signal. New planting will be a condition of approval, which should help soften visual impact and maintain privacy.

-       To address concerns about ecology the applicants have made contributions to mitigate pressure on the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC. The council ecologist has also confirmed that the proposal meets the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement. Which  contradicts the objector's statement that there would be a 39.7% net loss of habitat units. The officer confirmed in their presentation that contributions to mitigate pressures on the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC had been made.

-       To improve sustainability the design includes solar panels, an air source heat pump, and a sustainability statement confirms that they want to put in an EV charging point, natural ventilation and solar gain by design. This complies with JCS policy SD3 and Cheltenham Climate Change SPD.

-       The site lies on a flood zone 1, so there is no flood or surface water risk. It is also proposed that a sub-report on sustainable drainage is produced as well.

-       They have worked with Highways officers to address their original concern that a car wouldn’t be able to get down the drive. They have been satisfied by the tracking plans that 2 vehicles will be able to get down the proposed drive in a forward gear. This meets policy INF1.

-       The development will support local jobs, using local builders’ merchants, and skilled local labour.

-       Single storey properties aren’t normal for the area; it is offering different style housing that will support those who struggle with steps.

-       To address concerns raised in objections:

o   No HMO license has been applied for, and a change of class has not been submitted.

o   This is a secure single-storey dwelling, so it is unlikely that criminals would enter the plot to access other dwellings.

o   149 Prestbury Road have confirmed that there is no boundary dispute with the applicant following the erection of a new fence.

-       The applicant has worked closely with planning officers to ensure the proposal is policy compliant in terms of location, design, amenity, biodiversity, highways, drainage and sustainability. They respectfully ask the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation to permit the application.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The officer report was published on the planning portal on Friday morning, which is within the requirement for 5 working days. There was a full period of consultation carried out after the second design was submitted.

-       Highways were originally concerned about the lack of tracking for the internal site within the application but were satisfied with this element once it was provided by the applicant. Highways were not satisfied that as part of the application no. 151 would lose a parking space, however officers feel that the remaining space is reasonable for the property. Officers felt it would not be reasonable to reject the application on the basis of the lost space, particularly as the property is well located and connected to public transport. The new proposed dwelling would have two parking spaces.

-       The landscaping condition will also cover hard surfaces such as the driveway and will include what material is used. Currently believe this will be a permeable surface based on the sub-strategy.

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

-       Can see how this may impact on some of the neighbours, particularly no. 153 which will be left with a very small garden. However, this is the garden that is present today and the application matches the current boundaries of the properties.

-       As this is a single storey building it should not significantly change views from neighbouring properties.

-       Concern was raised over the silver birch in the southwest corner as it was felt that the condition that it must be retained for 5 years was not sufficient protection. It was suggested that a tree protection order (TPO) should be issued instead. As the garden is not very big, the residents in the new property might feel that removing those trees would be advantageous.

-       The application has gone through a lengthy process of discussion and amendment, which has brought us to a reasonable situation.

-       Biodiversity will be addressed through conditions if the application is approved.

-       They recognise why the application was referred to the Committee as the design has been squeezed into the maximum space and could be considered overdevelopment. Could not see a satisfactory reason for refusal on planning grounds.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that a TPO could not be implemented through a planning condition, but the tree department could choose to introduce a TPO in the future. The wording of the landscaping plan condition will include these trees, paragraph 6 states: “Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die… shall be replaced.”

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

For: 8

Against: 1

Abstentions: 2

Voted to permit.