Agenda item

CS explained that this garage building is used in conjunction with 81A New Barn Lane, and this is a retrospective planning application to allow the first floor to be used as holiday accommodation as described above.  There have been two representations from neighbours, objecting to the potential for increased noise and disturbance; the parish council has also objected on the grounds of inappropriate development.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

GB:  checked that Members have read the blue update.

Public Speaking:

Mr Harrison, agent, in support

Considers this application being brought to Committee an unusual situation – the officer recommends that permission be granted, but the application is here because the Parish Council has objected to the ‘inappropriate’ development, without giving any specific reason; in his opinion, not an appropriate way to object.   If it were not for this objection, the application would have been decided under delegated powers.  The greenbelt boundary in this part of New Barn Lane ebbs and flows, and the openness of the greenbelt will not be affected by this proposal – the building already has planning permission, and using it as a holiday let doesn’t affect the features of the site.  Openness is not an issue, and the proposal falls in with guidance in the Local Plan and the NPPF.  On practical issues, the potential disturbance of an occasional vehicle will be insignificant; there will be no additional visual impact on the amenity of neighbours, and no alterations to the building itself.  The windows will allow daylight into the space and are appropriate.  The proposed use is sustainable - the site is close to the Park and Ride, which is intended for visitors and in line with policy, and will boost the local economy, with most visitors attending race meetings at Cheltenham Racecourse and using the Park and Ride to go to town.  The property will be let for 42 weeks a year, and a condition sets out that it cannot be let to any one occupant for more than one month in any 12-month period.  The proposal is modest and will have no impact on the neighbour.

Member debate:

MS:  the report is a little on the light side.  Members who were on Planning Committee when the original application to build a garage was approved in 2005 – PT, BF, GB, MS – will remember a lengthy discussion about amenity issues arising from putting up a building in this location, and the concerns of the neighbour.  After the application was approved, the neighbour went to the Ombudsman, claiming that his amenity had suffered as a result of this application, and the Ombudsman agreed.  It cost CBC £10k in compensation for the neighbour’s loss of amenity.  The conclusion was that the garage shouldn’t be used for anything else apart from storage, but it obviously has been used as holiday accommodation – this is a going concern, advertised on the internet.  If this is now given approval, the neighbour’s amenity is likely to be further disturbed, with cars coming back at night, loud voices etc, and he could go to the Ombudsman again and incur more costs for the ratepayers’ money. On this basis, moves to refuse the application – it doesn’t comply with the conditions of the 2005 application and is contrary to CP4 in that it will harm the amenity of the neighbour.

PT:  if the Ombudsman instructed CBC to pay compensation, why is the garage still there?  Why was it not taken down?

BF:  MS, PT and BF – long-serving planning committee members – remember this case.  It doesn’t say in the report that the previous case was looked at by the Ombudsman but it should do – it is relevant to what is being considered tonight.

CS, in response:

-          paragraph 6.20 of the report refers to ‘other considerations’ which includes the Ombudsman case;

-          the Ombudsman looks at the process by which a decision is arrived at, not at the decision itself.  It is therefore not relevant to consideration of this application.  Current local plan polices and the NPPF are the relevant considerations here.  The Ombudsman case is mentioned in the report at Paragraph 6.21.

 AC:  it isn’t up to officers to decide what Members should know or not know.  This information should have been revealed, and finds it objectionable that it was not.

PT:  agrees.  Members should also know about the £10k, otherwise they will be working blind – they cannot all remember all the applications they have considered.

HM:  notes that this is a retrospective planning application.  Was not on planning view, but wonders how long this building has been used as a holiday let?  The neighbour doesn’t talk about noise, cars etc in reference to the recent unauthorised use of the garage.

MJC, in response:

-          Members should not get distracted by the Ombudsman issue – it is historic and the reasons behind it are no longer relevant;

-          in the 1997 greenbelt boundary review, the line was drawn incorrectly and this site was shown as being outside the greenbelt;

-          two planning applications were submitted at that time, one for a house and one for a garage.  The neighbour complained, and pointed out that the greenbelt change had been carried out incorrectly – a genuine mistake – but during that window of opportunity planning permission was granted for the house and garage.  The site was, erroneously, not shown as being in the greenbelt.  This is why the Ombudsman was involved;

-          the garage has planning permission, and the Ombudsman was not looking at the merits of the case but at how the decision was reached.  The garage is therefore an authorised structure, and was not required to be removed;

-          if planning permission is granted, the objector will need to go through the 3-stage process of internal complaints before going to the Ombudsman.  Procedurally, the application has been handled correctly, and Members should determine it on its merits;

-          the Ombudsman case is part of the history of this site but not relevant to the determination of this application – it is important to stress this.

CS, in response:

-          the holiday let use was brought to the attention of the enforcement team about a year ago, but until then, its use was sporadic;

-          it is at Planning Committee now to regularise that use as a holiday let, not as a permanent let.

GB:  are Members ready to vote on MS’s move to refuse on CP4(a) and breach of earlier condition to use the area only for storage?

PT:  if we agree this as the officer recommends, are we putting ourselves at risk of having to pay more compensation of any kind for any reason?

CL, in response:

-          obviously, the reasons why a case would be taken to the Ombudsman are varied, and if there was some other reason why the decision-making was considered procedurally unsound, then it could be;

-          for example, not taking into account the amenity of the neighbour, but provided members bear this in mind when making their decision so that it has been taken into consideration, this then would not be a ground

-          .

Vote on MS’s move to refuse on CP4(a)

5 in support

9 in objection

PERMIT