Agenda item

 

Application Number:			15/00058/FUL
Location:	9 Copt Elm Road, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of single storey dwelling
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		29	Update Report:		Officer comments, conditions and additional representations

 

MJC introduced the application as above, which was submitted after a previous scheme was withdrawn in 2014 due to concerns about height, scale, and highway safety issues.  The current application seeks to address those concerns; the visibility issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of the County.  The application is at Committee due to Parish Council concerns that it does not enhance St Mary’s Conservation Area.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Harris, local resident, in objection

Firstly, the newly-published highways report contains inaccurate and inadequate information, referring to ‘good visibility splays’ at the junction of Church Walk and Copt Elm Road.  Members will be aware from Planning View, there are no visibility splays at this junction, with parked vehicles reducing visibility virtually to nil – a car was written off here during previous building works.  In addition, the principal finding of the report – in the applicant’s favour – is questionable as he carried it out himself.  Officers claim the application is ‘sustainable development’ and ‘environmentally bearable’.  The Conservation Officer states that it represents over-development and land-grabbing with no demonstrable public benefit.  Being on the edge of the conservation area makes it more important, as if permission is granted, there will be nothing to stop the gradual erosion of the conservation area or developers from moving in with further garden-grabbing applications between Church Walk and Copt Elm Road – with access available, the precedent will have been set.

 

Planning officers say the historic garden plots are less important than their host houses, but this ignores the fact that the integrity of the conservation area depends on the sum of its distinctive features, and is on par with the Civic Society’s one-line comment which does not reference the conservation area at all.  On highway issues, the report on an earlier application here holds good, in that it fails to provide suitable access and parking and should be refused.  Lowering the boundary enclosure could easily be reversed by a future resident. 

 

This is calculated garden-grabbing in a conservation area, and the only financial interest served is the applicant’s own self-interest – and he is moving away from the area next week.

 

 

Simon Firkins, agent on behalf of the applicant, in support

The architect, applicants and agent have spent a lot of time, effort and care in creating a high-quality, well-designed home, sensitive to its context and not in conflict with policy, guidance or any material considerations.  Amendments have been made to address officer concerns, and the report deals with the salient points clearly and in detail.  The conservation area has many dwellings in similar locations, so this will not be out of character, simply continuing the line of dwellings and achieving an appropriate degree of subservience to the frontage house.  The report identifies the key characteristic of this part of the conservation area as the main road frontages, which this scheme will not impact at all.  It also explains how the scheme doesn’t result in harm to neighbouring amenity, with no overlooking, overbearing or loss of light.  There are a number of objections to the proposal, but many of these are from homes a long way from the site.  Local objection amounts to a small number of households, and some local residents are unhappy with the number of letter drops and posters against the scheme.  Understands that attempts of a minority to derail this thoughtful proposal were demonstrated on planning view, but these views are not shared by a majority of local people. 

 

Vehicle numbers and speeds on the access are low; highways officers have no objection to the scheme, subject to conditions.  The applicant owns the lane at the point of access, and the few cars associated with the proposal will not be harmful.  There will, of course, be some change as a result of the scheme, but change does not make something unacceptable. The development is carefully designed to respect its context, neighbours’ amenity and other material considerations, and will not set an unwelcome precedent.  It is a sustainable form of development, for which there is a presumption in favour

 

 

Councillor Reid, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Objections to this application have come from parishioners across Charlton Kings, not just St Mary’s Conservation Area, because this peaceful place is highly valued by people who enjoy its special character.  As Chair of the local Rights of Way Committee, can attest to the importance of this historic footpath, which has a high footfall serving a desire line for a range of users – children and mothers on route to school, people accessing rthe shops, dog walkers, and others enjoying the green corridor which is a wildlife haven. It is an important alternative for people to escape the noise and traffic of Copt Elm Road between London Road and the village.

 

In view of this, it is disappointing that no consideration has been given to the street scene at the rear of the properties, with their distinctive long narrow gardens, characterised by verdant growth and soft boundaries.  A proposal to develop land behind Victorian houses in Cirencester Road was rejected because it would have ruined the character of the area, even though it wasn’t in the conservation area.

 

Despite amendments this application does little to redress the original refusal reasons and the corrosive effect it will have on local people’s amenity and enjoyment.  The design is utilitarian at best and conflicts with existing buildings.  And last-minute highways comments that the lowering of the fence addresses the visibility issue doesn’t consider that any new occupant will install screening plants which will return the problem. Mums with toddlers and buggies and youngsters on bikes have only one refuge area olong this stretch of shared roadway, and additional traffic will be inconvenient and could cause an accident. 

 

Several policies can be used to refuse this harmful development from NPPF paragraphs 126-132, 134 and 53, and local plan policy GE2.  The Parish Council has objected strongly, taking on board local residents’ real concerns, and citing the SPD on St Mary’s Conservation Area which was created to protect the area’s historic context and distinctive site features, urban grain and landscape issues.  This application does nothing to preserve or enhance the conservation area.  The NPPF talks about sustainability and environment, and refusing this application is an important opportunity to sustain and environmentally important area for future generations. 

 

 

Member debate:

MS:  supports the views expressed by Mr Harris and Councillor Reid.  The lane is at maximum capacity, though this is not a refusal reason in itself.  The Conservation Officer’s report is very good and lists reasons why the proposal should be refused as totally inappropriate in this location.  Is amazed therefore at the planning officer’s recommendation to permit.  Moves to refuse on NPPF paragraphs 58, 64 and 126, page 36 of the Garden Land SPD and Local Plan Policy GE2.

 

PB:  this is one of the worst examples of backland development he has seen – it is obscene.  This barren plot must have been a wonderful garden in the past. There is no doubt the proposal will have a severe impact on the area - to describe it as a sensitive scheme is a joke.  MS and Councillor Reid have listed many reasons to refuse, to which he would add NPPF paragraph 132 and 134.

 

FC:  can’t understand how this application is at Committee with a recommendation to permit in view of the points made by the Conservation Officer.  Will support the move to refuse.

 

SW:  notes a reference to a public right of way.  Is this Church Walk?  Is it a public right of way on the definitive maps or the Map of Streets?

 

MB:  echoes what has already been said.  The term garden-grabbing is over-used, but that is precisely what this is.  The lane is already busy, but the real issue is that the site is in the St Mary’s conservation area and the design out of keeping.  As an aside, asks why the running order of Planning Committee meetings isn’t rearranged to reflect the public interest in particular applications.

 

MJC, in response:

-       some of the comments so far refer to the officer report.  The Heritage and Conservation Officer’s commentary is a good analysis of the proposal but doesn’t consider the wider context.  It is her role to look at it in a purist way but the planning officer’s role is different, and takes into account the wider context.  The SPD comes in handy here, and the site plan shows quite nicely that beyond Copt Elm Road and down Church Walk there is a much looser form and grain of property, and is not in the conservation area.  The Conservation Officer’s comments have not been dismissed but officers consider the wider area trumps the impact on the conservation area;

-       this is reinforced in the recommendation, which concludes that the proposal is not an anomaly given the built form and urban grain of the area, and respects the linear frontage development;

-       regarding the suggested refusal reasons, it’s very important that the application is refused for the right reasons.  Policy GE2 is used a lot as a refusal reason but has little success at appeals.  It is concerned with space which makes a significant contribution to an area, which this does not.  Considers CP7 more appropriate if Members are concerned about the conservation area;

-       is also doubtful about the use of Page 36 of the SPD on backland development, as this relates specifically to the introduction of a new access.  There is already access here serving eight dwellings.  Maybe the SPD can help in the refusal, but not Page 36;

-       CP7 and NPPF paragraph 134 can be part of a reasonable argument against the scheme, but MS’s other suggestions are inappropriate.

 

MS:  all that MJC has said is fine, but believes his other suggested refusal reasons should be left in. The Inspector will ignore anything he doesn’t agree with.  Considers them all to be valid, drawing the Inspector’s attention to the Committee’s thinking, but will add CP7 to the list.

 

PT:  is worried that MJC’s comments imply that as long as something looks OK from the front, it doesn’t matter what goes on at the back – which is awful.  This is shameful garden grabbing and quite appalling, encroaching on the public right of way, used by schoolchildren, and a very bad example, wrong in so many ways.  We should use as many refusal reasons as possible to turn it down.

 

KS:  this appears to be an odd-shaped plot.  What is the land outside the red line used for?

 

GB:  it is currently owned by someone else, and used as an allotment.

 

AL:  if this application is refused, what will happen with the plot?  It appears to be derelict, has been carefully sectioned off with the thick hedge ruining the view.  Is there anything which can be done to bring it back into use – it is presently quite an eyesore?

 

MJC, in response:

-       the public right of way is adjacent to the site, not part of it.  There is therefore no need to divert the public right of way.

 

SW:  is it a public right of way on the Map of Streets or the definitive map?

 

MJC, in response:

-       this is not relevant here.

 

SW:  if Church Walk is a public footpath or bridleway, it cannot be used for cars.

 

MJC, in response:

-       it is already being used by eight dwellings and the owner of the property to park at the back;

-       to AL, the council has no power to encourage the owners of this land to put it back into a garden or anything else.  There is no public nuisance, so a 215 notice wouldn’t be appropriate here;

-       we need to craft a refusal reason which officers can defend.  So far, we have CP7 and GE2, Page 36 of the SPD, and NPPF paragraphs 58, 64 and 126..  Suggests adding NPPF para 134 as well;

-       to PT’s concerns that officers are only concerned with how the proposal looks from the front, this is not what he was implying.  It is a sensitive area and certainly not a case of anything goes, but officers need to assess sites in a wider context.

-         

PT:  Members may not look at the site in its wider context in the same way as officers.  Can see and feel what this ‘blob’ in the middle of the drawing does to the wider context – it is totally out of place.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

11 in objection

4 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on MS’s move to refuse on CP7 and GE2, Page 36 of the SPD, and paragraphs 58, 64, 126 and 134 of the NPPF

12 in support

3 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE