Agenda item

MPayne introduced the proposal as above, saying that revisions have been sought during consideration which reduced the number of dwellings from 10 to 9.  The proposal includes three traditional terraced houses facing Cirencester Road, and three sets of more contemporary semi-detached dwellings within the site.  There are seven 4-bedroomed houses and two 3-bedroomed, all of which benefit from extra accommodation at basement level.  The application is at planning committee on account of an objection from the parish council. 

Public Speaking:

David Jones, agent, in support

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak, as planning consultant for the proposal, saying it is a full application for nine dwellings, having undergone a number of revisions after careful consideration of neighbours’ objections – reduction in the number of dwelling, increase in parking provision, reduction in the height of the buildings.  In view of the well-written report, had not been going to speak at committee, but after seeing Martin Horwood’s late objection, regretting the loss of the public house, decided to do so.  Refusal to grant planning permission must rely on adopted policies, the SPG of the NPPF.  Mr Horwood has cited policy RC1, which is included in the Local Plan to prevent premises or land with community value from being lost, more specifically to prevent churches from being converted to public houses or commercial/entertainment venues.  Reminds Members of the Greyhound pub which was converted into five apartments.  The Inspector read RC1 and supporting texts and considered it open to doubt the fact that the commercial venues were used for evening classes could mean they fall within the terms of the policy.  The Inspector did not consider that RC1 is relevant to commercial establishments, and therefore Mr Horwood’s comments do not bear close scrutiny.  Hopes Members will support the officer recommendation and vote in support.

Member debate:

RG:  Martin Horwood’s letter arrived very late in the day, and while it’s shame that a potential buyer wasn’t found at an earlier stage and a pity that the pub is going, it’s no surprise if it isn’t supported by local people.  Are the Trees Officer’s comments covered by Condition 10?  Wants all angles covered.

PT:  the opposite side of the coin is that several of the neighbour letters refer to a number of offers to buy the pub, including some over the asking price, but the developer chose not to consider them.  We need to look at what they did to sell this pub as opposed to developing the land.  Is very sad that so many pubs are going – we should take into account that they are gathering places for local people.  Would like to know why the pub was sold – cannot believe that it wasn’t a viable concern.

PJ:  following Mr Horwood’s and Mr Jones’s comments, would like to hear what officers have to say about policy RC1 – thinks it could be read either way.   Understands that there is a big function room at the pub, and wonders how the loss of this will impact the local community.

BF:  is sorry to see another pub go, but the nation’s drinking habits are changing – consider the Whitbread prize for literature is now the Costa prize.  Charlton Kings is fairly well off for pubs, unlike his own ward which only has one. The application is nicely laid out and designed, not trying to cram too much into the site. Is glad to see that the Lombardy poplars are to be kept. 

BD:  the Little Owl wasn’t her idea of a pub - more of a decent bar and gathering room.  Fashions are changing and wine bars are increasingly the thing.  This is a huge piece of ground which will easily take the houses proposed, and there are other pubs not too far away.  Considers this a good use of a brownfield site, and we need the houses.

KS:  has two concerns about the application.  Firstly the design:  either part of the application isn’t bad, but doesn’t feel they go together – red brick and Majorcan-style villas – and wonders why the applicant has provided this jarring design, as noted by the Architects’ Panel.  Secondly, is concerned about parking.  Visited the site recently and there were over six cars parked in Cirencester Road around the site, some on the pavement, as well as parked vans, altogether hazardous. Parking provided on site is not sufficient and will add to the problem.  Is also sad about the loss of the facility, which is a decent venue for events;  CharltonPark does not have many such venues, so this is an important facility for the residents in her ward too.

HM:  lives in Charlton Kings and has been in the Little Owl many times – it was a good community pub and she is sorry to see it go.  Cannot support the scheme, due to the different styles of houses at the front and back of the site. This is not cohesive – agrees with the Architects’ Panel. 

SW:  is also disappointed at the loss of the pub, but also concerned about the public footpath which runs through the back of the site.  At the December meeting, raised concerns about the stopping up of a public footpath, which are legally protected and should not be built on, overrun, or added to the roadway.  These need to be treated in a proper manner.

MPayne, in response:

-          concerns about the loss of the pub are set out in the report;

-          it is true that the decision needs to be met in terms of policy, and has been based on appeal decisions which clearly suggest that pubs are not included in policy RC1.  The function room is ancillary to the pub and there is no policy protecting it;

-          regarding the design, this wasn’t encouraged at the pre-app stage, and it was suggested that pitched roof design should be incorporated throughout to merge the site together;

-          the terrace at the front is a traditional form with more contemporary design further back in the site – this isn’t an unusual arrangement which is why officers are happy to support it;

-          to SW, the footpath is not a material consideration.

MPower, in response:

-          confirmed that it is not part of the application.  The right of way is shown on a definitive map and the applicant has spoken to GCC Public Right of Way officers.  There is a slight conflict of line of the Right of Way, and it is a criminal offence to obstruct a highway PROW, but this is outside the planning process.  The definitive line on the drawing shows where the right of way is, along the edge.  Cannot make any comment there.

SW:  wants to put down a marker as there has been an abuse of power here.  It is illegal to block a public footpath but there are several examples where this has happened.  The footpath is there and cannot be incorporated as part of the road – it must remain a separate footpath and not be obstructed.

RG: regarding design, would like to strengthen Condition 9, to ensure that where the modern materials join, there will be no staining of render etc as seen elsewhere, to ensure the best standard of contemporary design..

CC:  this should be a default position.

PT:  MPower said the footpath issue is outside the planning process, but what is to be done about it?

MS:  can a condition to maintain the footpath be included?  This seems the easiest way.  Apart from this, is happy with the design and density of the proposal, and will support it.

PJ:  if not a condition, maybe an informative can be included, to ensure that the County Council knows about our concerns.

MPower, in response:

-          this cannot be conditioned because it is covered by other legislation;

-          there are already four informatives concerning the public right of way.

KS:  cannot support this scheme, and is concerned about parking around the site during construction.  Even if we condition that construction vehicles are contained within the site, this could be 10-20 vans, and there is bound to be overspill onto the road. 

MPower, in response:

-          asks that Member endorse the highways conditions, and the condition for a construction method statement, which is robust and readily enforceable.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

3 in objection

PERMIT