Agenda item

25/01260/CONDIT - Variation to Condition Documents

25/01281/CONDIT - Variation to Condition Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published. Following a letter sent to Members by the applicant the day before, the officer clarified that:

-       Two of the proposed holiday units do involve the subdivision of part of the main house. The remaining three would be accommodated in the proposed extension and will be purpose-built units.

-       Regarding the use of the proposed units. The officer has checked email correspondence with the applicant from July 2024.  The description of development had changed during the course of determining the original application following the submission of revised proposals. At that time officers had sought clarification on the revised occupancy of the five units as short-term private lettings or rented properties and as staff accommodation, as opposed to all five being holiday lets as originally proposed. At no time previously had there been any proposal or suggestion that the units were intended to be occupied as permanent independent dwellings. The application was first submitted and was determined on the basis of it being holiday accommodation. It was this departure from the description of the development plus various revisions to the design and layout of the scheme that required the 3-week re-consultation exercise that is referred to in the letter.

-       The applicant’s comments about future occupiers being able to use the garden and recreational facilities at Glenfall House have also been noted but this would rely on the agreement of the owners of Glenfall House. In officer’s opinion a condition requiring that this arrangement remains in place in perpetuity would be unreasonable and would not pass the relevant NPPF tests. In contrast to holiday let visitors it also seems unlikely that occupiers of the proposed separate dwellings would be allowed extensive access to the private gardens and other facilities at Glenfall House.

-       On the matter of replacement dwellings. There are currently three small units within the modern outbuilding on site, known as Glenfall Garden Cottages. This building had previously been subdivided into three small self-contained units which were used in association with the previous hotel use at Glenfall House. Minimal alterations were required to the building to provide the three independent dwellings which were approved in 2021.

-       Policy SD10 of the JCS does not support new housing development outside of the Principal Urban Area (PUA). Whilst the subdivision of the main house to provide two new dwellings would be generally supported by SD10 and, subject to other wider considerations, the remaining three units would be purpose-built new dwellings and would be in conflict with SD10. Similarly, there is no development plan policy that specifically relates to replacement dwellings outside the Principal Urban Area or in the Cotswold National Landscape (AONB). Whether the three new build dwellings would be regarded as replacement dwellings for the small garden cottage units is a matter of judgement and each application is always considered on its own merits. In this case the size, scale, layout and form of the proposed new dwellings within the extension differ substantially from the existing garden cottage conversion, and the proposed development has a greater impact on the character of the site and significance of the designated heritage assets. Therefore, approved residential conversion works under policy SD10 do not necessarily then allow the replacement of those dwellings.

-       When considering the original application officers were very clear in the accompanying officer report that an exception was being made in this case in terms of the acceptability of the new build holiday accommodation units being provided outside the PUA. Their acceptability in principle was based solely on the previous hotel use and activities associated with the site, and importantly the occupation of the units being restricted to holiday accommodation purposes only.

-       Noting the change in residential occupation type, there are no significant neighbour amenity concerns and whilst acknowledging the unsustainable location of the site, road widths and lack of footways, the Highways Authority has on this occasion raised no objection and left sustainability matters to planning officers. On balance and despite the site’s rural and unsustainable location, officers consider that a refusal of the application on highways grounds would be difficult to substantiate, only because there is evidence of the previous use of the site as a hotel and wedding venue having generated similar numbers of traffic movement.

-       Aside from the conflict with housing policy, of particular concern is the impact of subdividing the site to provide the five permanent dwellings on the significance of the listed building and registered park and garden, notably their setting. The conservation officer has raised a number of concerns in this regard despite permitted development rights having been removed. These concerns include the potential for piecemeal erection of curtilage structures, formation of separate curtilages, new boundary treatments and landscaping, and the typical domestic paraphernalia associated with permanent dwellings. Potential inconsistencies in the external appearance of the dwellings, particularly if they are under separate ownership, is also of concern, and not all of these works would require planning permission. Fundamentally this could lead to the incremental erosion of the site’s character and visual coherence in historic heritage terms. Glenfall House itself could lose some of its identity and status as the principal listed building on site in that it would be surrounded by and physically attached to a group of separate dwellings within a subdivided site.

-       Having assessed the applications in accordance with paragraph 11d of the NPPF, including the contribution of two additional dwellings towards alleviating the housing shortfall, the identified adverse impacts of the proposals are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits on this occasion. The recommendation is therefore to refuse both applications for the reasons set out in the officer report and as amended in the updated officer report circulated earlier in the day.

There were two public speakers on the item: the applicant’s representative, and the ward member.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       A year ago this committee unanimously approved an identical form of unit with the only difference being how the five secondary units would be occupied. That restriction as holiday lets was a result of the description of development and was not imposed by the committee because of specific debate. The minutes confirm the committee agreed any harm was outweighed by the significant public benefits, including enhancement of the main listed building, removal of harmful additions, reinstatement of original features, and a more rational layout that enhances the setting.

-       Last year’s report also states that the appropriate conversion or subdivision of an isolated building in the countryside to residential use is likely to be supported. It went on to say that given the rather unique circumstances of this site and its planning history, the principle of the proposed redevelopment and provision of new build residential units/holiday lets in an isolated rural location outside the principal urban area on balance is considered acceptable.

-       Given the high praise given to the identical physical development we do not understand how changing how the five small units are occupied could tip the scale so far the other way as to now make the development unacceptable.

-       The letter sent to Members explained why this application is necessary, why the previous submission to make this change was withdrawn, and how concerns about amenity for future residents is not an issue with access to the grounds like many other similar situations.

-       In reality the heritage concerns would or could not occur as the building is listed and in the national landscape. The building has no permitted development rights and permission is needed for any changes to affect the external appearance. Condition 22 removes permitted development rights for all boundary treatments and structures like sheds and garages. Condition 15 requires sign-off of hard and soft landscaping, walls and fences. The council has full control over these things.

-       Planning cannot control ownership. The applicants have no intention of selling any part of the site and there’s no greater risk of separate ownership. Site subdivision is not proposed.

-       Outdoor furniture is used for holiday lets just as it is for dwellings and these things are not development and do not require permission.

-       The three existing units are unsympathetic to the building, which is harmful to the setting. They will be replaced by a building that enhances the setting. These are replacement dwellings. The other two units occupy part of the retained extension to the main house and the conversion or subdivision of that is also supported by policy.

-       This will increase dwellings where supply is well below the required 5-year land supply. The report confirms that holiday lets do not contribute to housing supply, so the existing permission actually creates a net loss of three dwellings. The benefit of five extra dwellings should therefore be given significant weight as inspectors have consistently done.

-       This proposal still provides much needed architectural and visual cohesion that restores the role outbuildings play in the setting of the main house and restores the integrity and appearance of the main house. There are other benefits to sustainability to landscape, trees, drainage and ecology.

-       Believe this proposal complies with policy and does not cause the harm the report suggests it does. Even if that harm did occur, is it so great as to outweigh what the committee previously approved as significant and demonstrable benefits? There are strong and sound planning reasons to approve these applications, especially as conditions continue to give the council full control over how the buildings and grounds will look in their much enhanced state.

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

-       In the unusual position of asking the committee to approve an increase of housing supply in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). One of my main priorities as a ward councillor is to protect fields in the AONB from being built over. When an opportunity presents itself to increase the council’s housing supply, which is well short of the 5-year target, with no physical changes to designs previously approved my appeal to the committee is to take that opportunity.

-       I believe this is also the majority view of my residents, who are very sensitive to development in the AONB. The application has received a single public objection. In contrast an application to build on a field in the Battledown AONB currently under consideration by officers has received 89 objections from residents. This speaks volumes about the type of development residents deem acceptable or unacceptable.

-       The officer’s report states that matters relating to highway safety, the principle of new housing development and impact on heritage assets need to be reconsidered. The no objection from Highways reports that recent experience with the planning inspectorate has shown that an assessment that a road is substandard is not sufficient to justify refusal. No objection was made either by Highways or the committee to either of the Castle Dream Stud applications, only a stones throw away from Glenfall House. The inspector who determined the nearby Oakley Farm appeal found that the highways impact was not severe enough to warrant refusal. The fastest route to Oakley Farm heading south out of Cheltenham is down either Mill Lane or Greenway Lane and must have formed part of the inspector’s consideration.

-       Regarding the principle of new housing development. The application states that there are no physical changes to the approved plans. It is a wording change to remove the holiday occupancy only restriction. The committee previously approved the new build development of large detached contemporary houses at Cromwell Court, also in the AONB and around half a mile from Glenfall House. Homes in this development are currently being marketed at prices ranging from £2.45-2.75 million. Given this approval, struggling to understand how this application for much more affordable housing is not acceptable, not least because of the difficulties the council is experiencing in achieving its affordable housing targets.

-       On heritage matters. It is far from clear how a wording change to the permitted use can result in any harm, never mind harm that outweighs the benefits of an increase in the supply of relatively affordable homes. Members approved the application for 129-133 Promenade, which is a grade II starred listed building. The approved structures which will be filled with tables, chairs and other necessities for running a restaurant will block the view of the building in a very visible location. In that case Members decided the economic benefits outweighed the heritage concerns. In this case the benefits of the increase in housing supply clearly outweigh any heritage concerns. Although I do not believe there is any heritage harm as the application is for a wording change only.

-       Members will have read the application, covering letter, heritage statement and rebuttal of the conservation officer’s comments prepared by experts with extensive experience of listed building planning applications. Members should carefully consider these documents, in particular the rebuttal statement. They contain statements of fact regarding planning rules and what is and is not a relevant planning matter, not subjective opinion. It is regrettable that opportunity was not taken to issue a rebuttal to the rebuttal statement either in the officer’s report or as a separate document. This suggests that the points made are not disputed.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       Officers did have regard to paragraph 11d of the NPPF, which is set out in the conclusion of the Committee report, but in this case do not consider that the benefits of the contribution of two dwellings to the housing land supply shortfall outweigh the heritage concerns and the other matters raised, or the conflict with planning policy.

-       As holiday accommodation and with permitted development rights removed it is far less likely that there would be more subdivision of these plots. The change to permanent dwellings increases the likelihood that occupiers would want their own garden area, washing lines, and domestic paraphernalia such as small curtilage structures, sheds and outbuildings. There is concern around parking provision as this is currently shown in shared areas.  Future occupiers may wish to park outside their own houses, for example. Refuse facilities are also shared and in the courtyard of Glenfall House and within the ground floor of one of the extension units. Matters like this could lead to incremental changes. There may also be future modifications to facing materials, exterior painting and things attached to the buildings, satellite dishes for example. If these properties are in private ownership the likelihood is far greater than if it was a managed holiday let scheme.

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

-       During a site visit that morning there was clear signs of demolition and scaffolding over Glenfall House despite the suggestion that no work had been undertaken.

-       Whilst it was being suggested that this was merely a change of name from holiday accommodation to residential accommodation, it was clear that this was a more fundamental change with a small hamlet being established in an area of open countryside. They thanked the officer for an excellent report and clear explanation of the greater risks associated with residential accommodation.

-       A Member noted that whilst he had been very pleased with the work being carried out on Glenfall House in the last application, for example the removal of the water tank from the roof and changes that would bring the house closer to its original design, they had not been completely happy with the changes to the stables. It was disappointing historically to lose them, although they recognised they were not suitable for use in their current state and the new designs were in keeping with what was wanted.

-       Members commented that it was uneconomic to run small hotels and that it was important that the scheme was financially viable to ensure that this wonderful building could be preserved into the future. Concern was raised that if the applications were not granted the building could become empty and derelict.

-       Another Member noted that this had also been the argument for the inclusion of the holiday lets in the first application and it felt like this change moves the goalposts and the financial argument could be used to justify further changes in the future.

-       Given that the council regularly receive complaints about Airbnbs taking up housing stock, it was felt it was refreshing for a chance to see holiday lets being moved into residential use. Particularly given the housing shortage.

-       There is no major material difference to the approved application aesthetically speaking and as the units are on the side of Glenfall House that is not visible from the garden, the change will not have a big impact.

-       Given these applications did not represent a significant change to the approved application and the tilted balance in support of development, one Member felt that the council’s objection was not clear enough to support refusal of the applications.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified the following points:

-       The new extension replaces the curtilage listed buildings that are being demolished. The officer’s recommendation on the previous application was an on balance decision in terms of the acceptability of including holiday accommodation only within the extension, not permanent, separate residential dwellings.

-       Previously and in relation to this application there has been no information submitted and no financial viability assessment carried out to demonstrate that holiday lets and/or permanent dwellings are needed to financially maintain the listed building. Although the applicants have mentioned viability, they have not provided any evidence to substantiate this.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

For: 3

Against: 5

Abstain: 1

Voted against the officer recommendation to refuse the application. The committee then voted to delegate authority to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee to agree conditions.