Agenda item

EP described the application as above, for outline permission with all matters reserved other than access, at committee at the request of Councillor Babbage.  Officers are concerned that the site is too small to accommodate the dwelling.  The site is in the AONB.  There are highways concerns regarding safety, visibility at the entrance, and the lack of space for passing -  a letter from the County concerning the highway situation has been circulated to Members as an update.  The officer recommendation is to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Ms Becky Brown of SFPlanning, agent, in support

The report acknowledges that there is no policy to preclude small-scale development of this kind within the AONB, therefore the principle is acceptable. The indicative proposals show how the plot can be successfully developed without any adverse effects; the pattern of local development is organic, varied, and not exclusively frontage development. 3D images circulated to Members show that the proposed dwelling will sit inconspicuously in the site and be barely noticed.  Cannot see how it could be regarded as harmful to the AONB when an approved dwelling between The Bredons and The Gray House, directly fronting Harp Hill, was not, and would further obscure the development site from view from the road. The report acknowledges that the site is not widely visible from public vantage points but doesn’t mention that the approved dwelling would make it even less visible. 

Generous amenity space can be created for the new dwelling without being cramped.   There has been no objection from the closest neighbouring property.  Design and external appearance will be addressed at the reserved matters stage.  The applicant has worked with County Highways to resolve the access and highways issues.  The width of access issue has been resolved with the addition of a passing bay, and the visibility splay requirements can be met to ensure safe access to the main road. The Council has used Grampian conditions elsewhere to ensure that the necessary work is done to provide suitable visibility, at Gravel Pit Cottages for example, and can use something similar here to ensure that all work is done until visibility is secured. 

If the proposal is as unacceptable as officers suggest, would expect to see more opposition to it, but the Civic Society supports it, the Parish Council has made no objection, and only one out of 20 neighbours consulted has objected to the scheme.  Based on the context, cannot see the proposal will harm the AONB, and safe access can be secured via a Grampian condition, and therefore urges Members to support the scheme.

Member debate:

PB:  what is a Grampian condition?

EP, in response:

-          it is a negatively-worded condition requiring certain works to be carried out before any part of the development can start.  In this case, that would mean something along the lines of:  ‘Before any work starts on site, a scheme for visibility splays must be secured’.  This precludes any other works if there is any possibility of the highways work not being carried through.

BF:  cannot see much wrong with this proposal.  It is in the AONB but there have been no objections from the conservationists, and in any case, permission was given to a large number of dwellings in the AONB at the GCHQ site.  Development is usually acceptable in the AONB as long as it is small scale. 

Access is OK and there are no major highways issues.  This is an outline application, so design details such as balconies can be discussed at a later stage.  As an outline, the proposal is OK, and may consider moving to permit.

MB:  in genuinely torn here.  The scale of the proposal site is clearly not the same as the surrounding sites, but is tucked away.  If the residents of the nearest house, Kings Welcome, had objected, would be inclined to vote against it, but with no objections from neighbours, is more minded to go with the move to approve.

PB:  would also support a move to approve.  Cheltenham is a town with a finite amount of land and constant pressure to find land for new homes.  This proposal will have no negative impact on the neighbours, none of whom have objected.  Subject to a Grampian condition as discussed and the parking spaces shown in the drawings being guaranteed, feels OK about supporting this.

EP, in response:

-          the garden land SPD relates to layout of a new development, and how it should respond to the vicinity in terms of grain, frontage, building width;  this proposal is at odds with the prevailing grain, which is loose-knit, with big properties on large, irregular sites.  It’s true that it would not be widely visible, but if other little plots of land were to be similarly developed on crammed sites, the semi-rural character of the AONB would be eroded, and officers are concerned about the potential impact of this;

-          Members have received the highways officer’s advice in the update; there is no reason to disagree with this;

-          these are the reasons why officers are recommending refusal.

MS: supports the officer recommendation, as would anyone who was on Planning View – the proposal is totally out of character with the area and neighbouring properties.  It’s true that we need houses, but if they are crammed into sites such as this, the area will quickly become a series of little estates.  Surely it is right that we keep some places special?  This is out of character.

PT:  can see what is being said about the grain of the area, but it is obvious what has happened on this site, where there are currently four large houses in large plots, but a few yards down the road there are the standard four ordinary-looking houses and gardens, still within the AONB, so the grain situation falls by the wayside here.  Is prepared to support the application.  On Planning View it was obvious that it is possible to see down the road; it is quite a nasty bend, but people have been living with it for a long time and one more dwelling is not going to make much difference.

HM:  supports the officer recommendation due to the statement from Gloucestershire Highways.  Planning Committee is often frustrated by highways officers saying that the implications of a small development are not severe enough to have any significant impact; here they are saying that the additional dwelling will have an impact, and we should take notice of this and refuse the scheme on those grounds.

JF:  the highways officer says that one or two additional cars might make a difference to road safety here.  The SPD is in place to control building in back gardens, and states clearly that access should not be shared.  Will go with the officers on this one.

BF:  regarding the size of the house and plot, the Battledown Estate has a covenant governing this, but Harp Hill isn’t part of the Battledown Estate, so is this enforceable here?  Notes that one of the letters of objection is from a neighbour who is proposing to build on adjacent land and seems to be saying ‘you can’t but I might’.  Moves to approve. 

EP, in response:

-          regarding the Grampian condition discussed earlier, in order to comply with this, the applicant will need to get control over third-party land.  Officers are concerned about the reasonableness of this.  If Members want to approve, the exact wording of the Grampian condition will need to be approved by the Chair and Vice-Chair;

-          to BF’s comment about the Battledown Estate, is not sure whether this site is covered by the covenant, but it would not be directly applicable to the planning situation in any case.

Vote on BF’s move to permit

6 in support

7 in objection (including Chairman’s casting vote)

1 abstention

REFUSE