Agenda item

 

Application Number:			11/00735/FUL
Location:	113 Church Road, Leckhampton
Proposal:	Erection of a single storey dwelling to the rear (revised drawings to those previously consulted upon)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		17	Update Report:		Conditions

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Sheldon, applicant, in support

Told Members that she had spent a considerable amount of time overcoming concerns about the original application, and the current proposal is for a single-storey (rather than two-storey) dwelling which causes no harm to neighbouring amenity, has no highway safety issues, and does not adversely affect the character of the wider area. The proposed dwelling is not at odds with planning policy, is less obvious than the previous proposal, meets requirements of separation distances, is single-storey so does not cause loss of privacy or light to neighbours, and with windows at ground level will not overlook the neighbours – said it is not true to say that there will be overlooking issues, as endorsed by officers.  Said the proposed dwelling sits comfortably in the generous gardens, and its height and design are appropriate.  Agreed that the design is contemporary, but said although this is different, it is not inaccessible – it is a high quality, bold and interesting design which fits well in its context.  Regarding highway issues, said vehicular access will be by an existing access and no highway objection has been raised.  Highways also accept that the increase in traffic would be negligible.  Summed up by saying this is a proposal for a single-storey, high quality, family house close to good schools, and is supported by officers.  Hoped Members would agree.

 

Mr Clarke, neighbour, in objection

Spoke on behalf of neighbours to emphasise the points made in their many letters of objection.  Was concerned about the impact of the development on the character of the area - it is garden infill and a totally different design to the other dwellings around it.  Realises that houses in the area are of many different styles, but considers the external, futuristic appearance of the proposed dwelling, its 1.5 storey construction, wood panelling and metal roof are completely out of character.  Regarding its impact on neighbouring properties, said at 1.5 storeys, it would overlook other homes.  On the subject of highway safety, said Church Road can’t take any more traffic; this dwelling will exit on to Church Road, and additional cars will be involved.  Asked Members to note that of 26 letters sent out, 15 objections and two comments had been received, none of which were in support.

 

 

Member debate:

RG:  on a technical point, asked about the description of the proposal – it states ‘erection of a storey dwelling’.  Should this be single-storey or 1.5 storey?

 

MJC, in response:

-          apologised for oversight.  Said the proposal is for a single-storey building, but could be termed a ‘generous’ single storey.

 

RG:  on planning view, had noted the lovely open garden of 113 Church Road which would obviously be lost when built on, and questioned the conclusion at 2.2 of the officer report update that the integrity of the original building will not be compromised – said part of the integrity of the original building is the large open garden.

 

PT:  referred to one of the letters of objection which stated that Inspectors have said previously that there should be no more traffic exiting onto the lane.  Would like to hear from MP on this.

 

KS:  thought this quite a tricky application.  Had looked closely at the design of the building and could find nothing wrong with it, but knows the area well, the existing house is one of her favourite buildings in Cheltenham, and thinks it would be a shame to spoil its setting.  However, considers the issue of traffic on Church Road to be much, much more important than this, and has already spoken to MP about it.  In the past, has used her car to pick up her son from school and found the road a nightmare, with parking on the pavement on a narrow part of the road.  On one occasion, as school governor, had accompanied children to an Easter service at the church, and with cars parked on the pavement, the only way past was to allow the children to walk on the road.  Said permitting another house here was not right.  Noted the objections on pages 100-107 of the schedule, and said a new driveway will not solve the issue – the same problem will still exist and there will be no room for cars to get past.  Asked why it was suggested that the new exit makes any difference.

 

BF:  noted that this is a locally listed building, and asked KR to reiterate what merits a house being included as a locally listed building as opposed to a listed building.

 

MS:  agrees with RG – the design is alright but it doesn’t complement the listed building.  Thought the proposal was contrary to the SPD on garden development.

 

BD:  had been up and down the road, and found it crowded and difficult to pass.  Asked Highways to confirm that there would be room to turn a car round and drive out frontways.  Would need to know this is possible before voting in support of the proposal. 

 

LG:  noted that the policies and guidance listed in the officer report made no reference to policy GE2, and found it hard to accept that this large garden doesn’t add to the amenity of the area. On the traffic issue, said this will never improve on Church Road, and even though it could be said that two extra cars won’t make much  difference, was reluctant to vote for anything which would mean two or three additional cars on this almost intolerable road.

 

AC:  as ward councillor, shares other Members’ concerns about traffic, and noted the recommendation for refusal from Highways on P101 of the report.  Asked why they had now changed their mind.

 

MP, in response:

-          started with a bit of scene-setting – said the original Highways objection had related to the existing access.  Had looked at the restricted visibility and turning space, which could have resulted in cars having to reverse out, and recommended refusal.  Now an access had been created which would overcome these problems.  There had been pre-app discussions on visibility, lack of width and reversing on to the road, but with the creation of the new access, all this became acceptable, and the new plans made it easier to drive out in forward gear;

-          knows Church Road well and realises that it has problems, but has to ask whether this was reason enough to refuse the proposal.  According to the NPPF, it is not;

-          said the Inspector’s previous comments that there should be no more cars accessing the road was a rogue decision, which had changed with time.  It could not be said that one or two more cars would make a difference.  Reminded Members that cars travel slowly on this road, and also made the point that many of the cars parked on the road and pavements belong to residents;

-          said Highways can not object to the proposal as it is, and if the police thought the situation on Church Road was that bad, they would have done something about it;

-          concluded that it was not tenable to object on the grounds of one dwelling, in keeping with the NPPF, and urged Members not to refuse the scheme on highways grounds.

 

KR, in response:

-          was not a consultee on this application, but said that the setting of a listed building is a consideration and has been tested at Appeal – reminded Members of the application for a multi-storey car park at the hospital.  This case went to appeal, and the Inspector ruled against it as it would have affected the setting of the Lido, a listed building.

 

MJC, in response:

-          said KR was quite right, adding that the report gave the rationale for including this building on the local index but made no reference to its setting.  Said Cheltenham has very few buildings like this one, in a New England style;

-          following on from MP’s comments, reminded Members of the appeal decision at Thompson Drive, for the construction of two houses, 2-3 years ago.  The Inspector had not seen the additional traffic as an issue, and officers had taken heed of county council advice on this point;

-          to Members’ concern about whether this is an appropriate site to be developed, and LG’s introduction of policy GE2 to the debate, said if Members choose to go down this route, they must specify what the significance of the site is and what is so special about it that it should not be developed.  Looking at the specifics of GE2, it speaks about ‘significant townscape and environmental contribution’.  Asked if Members felt this garden is doing this, and if so, how?

-          had considered the proposal against the Garden Land SPD, and believed the key element is understanding the context.  Said Members would have noted on Planning View that the proposal does not extend beyond the building line, and that the area is very mixed architecturally.  Said there is an established, fairly loose grain behind the frontage on Church Road, and they should bear this in mind;

-          agreed that the proposal is overtly modern in design, but said officers welcomed the variety in the area where there are currently New England-style, thatched, 1960s, Regency-style, and red brick properties in close proximity – a real mix with no well-defined architectural style.  It is therefore entirely appropriate to introduce a modern, contemporary approach;

-          said the proposal had been thoroughly assessed against the SPD, and officers feel that it won’t compromise this – it will change the area, and the property has been designed to be seen as it deserves to be; it is not in breach of the SPD, and officers were happy to recommend its approval.

 

PT:  having looked at a map of the area, and noted that it is fairly densely developed, considers this garden to be very attractive and a ‘green lung’ – a breathing space in the area.  Said there are not many of these where the houses are built up, and despite there being fields beyond, thought that covering every inch of greenspace with houses is not a good thing to do.  Was not convinced the proposal wouldn’t detract from the listing of the original house, and asked KR if listing could ever be taken away due to inappropriate building around and outside.

 

LG:  said officers are always willing to quote to NPPF, and referred them to paragraph 53, which states that local authorities should consider setting out policies to resist the inappropriate development of residential gardens where development would cause harm to the local area.  If the local councillors think it will cause harm to the area, this can be used as a refusal reason, together with GE2 of the Local Plan. Has not heard anything yet to convince him to vote in support of this development.

 

KS:  understands more about the access now following MP’s comments, but does not think the issue of visibility has been overcome.  Said the new access is directly next to the original access, and with cars parked right up to the junction, it will not overcome the problems.  Thought that restricted visibility was a reason to refuse – there is access for one house at this location, not two.

 

MJC, in response:

-          to PT’s question about whether local listing is ever reviewed, said it is every so often, and would be put to a panel.  However, said this property isn’t on the local index just because of its setting, but also to do with its style of architecture and there being no other building like it in Cheltenham.  Reminded Members that schemes to build in the gardens of locally indexed buildings have been approved in recent years, and the impact of the scheme on the locally indexed building has to be assessed;

-          to PT’s comment about the garden being a ‘green lung’, said this goes back to context and it is clear that there is a lot of open space beyond the site – larger gardens, school playing field and so on.  Said both the existing and proposed properties will retain a decent amount of space around them, and the proposed new dwelling is designed to be respectful of this;

-          to LG’s comments about NPPF requirements, said he has included reference to Para 53 in his report, and resistance of ‘inappropriate development’ is basically what CBC has done through its SPD.  However, this does not mean that every backland scheme is unacceptable – it is all about context, and this is what the SPD tries to achieve;

-          said the proposed dwelling is not an anomaly – there are other buildings all around it – and does not compromise privacy.  There are a lot of good things about it, and Members need to identify what they consider is wrong with it if they want to move to refuse the scheme.

 

MP, in response:

-          reminded Members of the previous permission at this site whichconditioned frontage boundaries to be removed.  Considers this proposal an improvement, as it will achieve better visibility and control the frontage;

-          said in practical terms, it’s true to say that parked cars will restrict visibility, but in planning terms this is not an issue.   This has been measured on the plan, and it would be true to say that visibility at most junctions in Leckhampton are affected by parked cars but these don’t cause accidents;

-          regarding the width of access, turning space and visibility, said Highways has got all it required and cannot object. Visibility is not substandard; in fact it is improved.  Said again that refusal on Highways grounds is not recommended.

 

KS:  said the land is so individual and there are no other houses like 113 Church Road, with the large garden adding to the colonial style.  Thought the green space consideration important – although it is close to public green space, this may not be there for much longer, making every bit of green space more important and worthy of protection.  Said again that congestion levels are high, though was prepared to withdraw her objection on restricted visibility grounds, following MP’s comments.  Moved to refuse on BE11, as the scheme will compromise the setting of a locally listed building and spoil the appearance of a special house.  Was happy for other Members to add more reasons should they wish.

 

MJC, in response:

-          regarding BE11, said this refers to the demolition or harmful alteration of the building on the Local Index – i.e. physical works to the building itself, not to its setting. Members should think very carefully if they want to use this policy, as it is not correct in officers’ opinion;

-          said that policy CP7 would be more appropriate here, as it refers to the design and setting of the building; GE2 is not suitable as the green space is not high enough in value.  If Members are minded to refuse, suggested they do so on CP7, but said that KS’s comments so far have the makings of a weak argument which could not be defended successfully at appeal;

-          reminded Members that the NPPF requires planning authorities to take a positive approach and look for solutions.  It is true that the current house and garden make a contribution to the area, but not enough to make a strong case - there is only the shred of an argument here.

 

LG:  thought that GE2 should be added, as a private garden would be lost.  If the case goes to appeal, the Inspector will make a judgement.  Said there is no harm in including any policies which are the least bit supportive of what Members are trying to achieve.

 

CC:  asked if Members wanted to substitute CP7 for BE11, and add GE2.

 

KS:  said the officer advice is that substantial reasons are needed to refuse – the reason is that Members are not happy with the setting of the locally listed building being destroyed.

 

MJC, in response:

-          thought that officers could craft a refusal reason based on the setting of the locally listed building, but still considered inclusion of GE2 troubling.  Asked Members if the site is so significant compared, say, with townscape green spaces such as Montpellier Gardens.  An appeal inspector would ask this question.

 

LG:  disagreed with this – said Members hear this kind of argument all the time and it gets them nowhere.  Reminded them of the application at 15-17 Deep Street in Prestbury which went to appeal – this concerned a small green lawn, hidden from the highway, behind four walls on all sides and with the only access through another person’s property – and was deemed to be contrary to GE2.  Asked why we have policies if we don’t use them.  If policy reasons for refusal aren’t put forward, the moves are more likely to be lost.

 

 

 

MJC, in response:

-          said Deep Street was a different case – it was in Prestbury conservation area and there was a listed building in close proximity.

 

TC, in response:

-          to clarify on MJC’s comments, said officers are trying to give a clear steer about how robust the case would be should an appeal scenario arise;

-          said GE2 is very clear in policy terms and refers to private green space which makes  a townscape contribution, while CP7 refers to the character of the locality and landscape – this is enough;

-          said it isn’t appropriate to go forward with a refusal, thinking that as many additional reasons as possible need to be pulled in to strengthen the case – this won’t happen, and this approach is more likely to harm the case;

-          if Members can’t say why the proposal will harm the townscape, they should consider CP7 only as a refusal reason.

 

MS:  totally disagrees with this.  Regarding GE2, said all things are relevant, and it would be up to an Inspector to decide whether or not this policy was appropriate.  Thought GE2 and CP7(c) and (e) are all very relevant here.

 

CC:  said KS has moved to refuse and LG has added a reason.  Asked CL to clarify protocol here.

 

CL, in response:

-          said again there seems to be a confusion regarding protocol: if Members vote on the recommendation to grant permission and this is lost, officers will pull out the refusal reasons suggested;

-          if Members vote in support of the move to refuse contrary to the recommendation, officers will go with the refusal reasons put forward;

-          the officer advice to KS was that she needed to come up with reasons for refusal.  She has done this – CP7 -  and officers will outline these to make sure KS is happy with them;

-          if other Members are not happy with the proposer’s refusal reasons, they can move to amend them;

-          if the amendment is carried, then Members can then vote on the amended resolution;

-          if this amendment is lost, Members will vote on the motion originally proposed by KS; if this is lost, the permission will be granted as the recommendation.

 

MJC, in response:

-          said this advice is clear.  Was aware of a number of concerns from Members, but said that CP7 provides enough ammunition for an appeal situation; adding further policies will lead to a dilution;

-          said GE2 is not appropriate here – the green space is not significant enough;

-          urged Members to rely on CP7.

 

JW:  admitted that this was the one site he did not visit on Planning View, but had listened intently to the debate.  Said that Members appeared to be feeling more negative than positive about officer advice and that ten minutes had been spent discussing reasons for refusal.  Asked how long Members and officers would keep looking if there were no substantial reasons which would stand up at appeal.

 

KS:  was happy for other people to amend her suggested refusal reasons, but accepted officer advice on CP7.  Regarding appeals, thought it worth including any reasons Members thought appropriate and leaving it to the Inspector to decide whether or not it was relevant, but thought CP7 was the best bet, considering the harm the proposal would do to the setting and the area. 

 

CC:  asked if there were any moves to amend the motion.

 

MS:  proposed the addition of GE2 (b) and (c), and NPPF Para. 53.

 

Vote taken on MS’s move to amend the refusal motion to refuse on CP7(c) and (e), GE2 (b) and (c), and NPPF Para.53

2 in support

11 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION LOST

 

Vote taken on KS’s move to refuse on CP7

6 in support

8 in objection

MOTION LOST

 

APPLICATION PERMITTED

 

 

Cllr Walklett left the meeting at this point.