Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/01823/FUL
Location:	Land at Manor Farm, Manor Road, Swindon Village
Proposal:	Erection of 2no. bungalows and 6no. houses
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Delegated Permit subject to a legal agreement
Letters of Rep:		19	Update Report:		Additional officer comments

 

Officer Introduction:

CS described the application for eight dwellings, as above, in the Swindon Village Conservation Area and adjacent to a GII* listed church. Members will note from the report and the lay-out that there have been suggestions that the adjoining parcel of land should be transferred to the Church, but this is outside the application site.  Officers feel such a legal agreement is not needed at this stage.  The existing access to the site is via Church Road, an unclassified road.  Officers have worked closely with Highways officers, whose original objections to the scheme have now been dealt with through amendments and now support the proposal.  The scale, layout and design all fit comfortably within the conservation area.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, and due to a lengthy objection from the Parish Council concerning the impact on the conservation area, highway matters, and the listed church.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Hunter, local resident, in objection

Is opposed to the application for many reasons, but primarily because the proposed site access is problematical, through a narrow lane and destructive to the conservation area. The proper access to this site is through Manor Court, already designed in and shown on the drawings – this access was referred to in the original Manor Court development, for exactly this eventuality.  The access point at Manor Court is already prepared and would negate the need to use a narrow lane inside the conservation area – it is large, wide and outside the conservation area.  If the application is rejected, the applicant can re-draw the access by way Manor Court and reapply. This will avoid encroachment in the conservation area; be vastly safer for vehicles and pedestrians who would not have to share this narrow road with cars and trucks; allow the existing lane to remain an attractive example of what the conservation area is there to protect; remove the need for the verges to be ripped up – they have been there for generations and cared for by neighbours;  remove the need to obstruct the public footpath; remove all the issues that are shown in the traffic sweeps in and out of the narrow lane, which appear to be a desperate attempt to make it fit no matter what. To summarise, this application should be refused because the applicant has refused to use the correct access which is readily available at Manor Court.  If this change was made, all reasons for objection would be removed and the conservation area would remain untouched.

 

Mr Bower, agent for applicant, in support

From the 1950s until two years ago, the site formed part of a small farm which sold eggs to local people, and was also used for caravan storage.  Lorries made regular deliveries, and  this was a busy farmyard and access road.  These uses are no longer compatible with the village location, and the brownfield land not suitable to be returned to agricultural use.  If left, it will become a wasteland of brambles and litter, not the rural idyll some objectors have suggested.  Over the last 5-10 years, the family has had many approaches from developers looking to build far more houses than what is proposed in this application, and have therefore funded this application themselves to ensure that it is sensibly sized, and makes efficient use of the site to balance density and design and leave a pleasant area for families to live, with a feeling of space for a small community.  Fewer houses would have left the developer open to challenge as being below government guidelines for density and efficient use of land.  There is a comprehensive landscaping scheme – shrubs and trees for screening and boundaries, which will also provide wildlife corridors around the site.  The conservation officer has supported the scheme from the start, and English Heritage withdrew its objection after reviewing the scheme in detail.  The developers have had protracted liaison with the highways department, and they are satisfied that access arrangements meets their requirements, and that refuse and emergency vehicles have relevant space within the site.  This is an appropriately-sized scheme for the land and will form a small but pleasant addition to the village on a brownfield pocket of land 

 

Member debate:

PT:  a lot of objections are based on highways issues and access to the site.  Can Officers show the Manor Court entrance on the screen and offer any information as to whether or not this is usable? Is concerned as Highways Officers have withdrawn their objection but neighbours are not happy.

 

CS, in response:

-       the access road via Manor Court isn’t in the applicant’s ownership and therefore beyond his control – it is a ‘ransom strip’ – but the proposed access via Church Road is acceptable to Highways Officers who consider it suitable. 

 

BF:  if the proposal is permitted, can we add a condition about badgers – there is a large and very active colony on the site, which probably took up residence there when the church wall was underpinned.  If they move into people’s gardens, it will cost the residents a lot of money to move them on again – they are wild, obstinate and go where they like, wreaking havoc in gardens.  It cost the Diocese a lot to repair the damage they had done.  

 

FC:  notes the comments on Page 162 of the report from English Heritage – who are used to considering applications in conservation areas and for listed buildings – acknowledging that the passing of the parcel of land to the south of the church will provide a long term visual buffer for the setting of the church, and that this is critical that its transfer should be legally tied to the granting of planning permission.  The officer goes on to say at Paragraph 1.4.4 that although this land is in the applicant’s ownership, it is outside the application site and is therefore not being considered at this time.  Finds this odd.  Officers say that any future application on this site would need to be considered on its own merits.  How can they dismiss what English Heritage has described as ‘critical’ to the granting of planning permission by saying it isn’t part of this application so we can forget it?

 

CS, in response:

-       to BF’s question, the applicant has submitted an ecological survey, approved by the County ecologist, and officers are satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed and incorporated in the conditions.  The displacement of the badgers will be to land within the applicant’s ownership, and Members can be confident that the badgers will be accommodated;

-       to FC, officers noted the comments from English Heritage, but this application leaves that land undeveloped as a visual buffer between the development site and the church, and any proposal in the future would need to be assessed on its own merits.  Officers consider leaving the land undeveloped through this application to be acceptable.

 

FC:  Officers seem to be saying that the applicant has said this piece of land is not going to be developed, so English Heritage remarks can be ignored.  If that is the case, would like to add a condition that that the land adjacent to the church will be protected against any forthcoming application.  Wants to ensure that English Heritage suggestions can be done and considered.

 

HM:  agrees with FC.  It is all very well to say the land is not part of the application site, but if another application comes through, we would need material planning reasons to refuse it, and is not sure what those could be.

 

AL:  notes the access via Manor Court Road – is there any possibility of gaining access that way?  There would be a lot of benefits in this, it would offer more separation from the parcel of land between the church and the development site, and cars wouldn’t have to come through the village. The development looks good – it is not over-development – and this alternative access would greatly enhance it.

 

HM:  has sympathy with this view but the only way to make Manor Court Road the only access is to stop up the existing track to Swindon Village – if it is left, the new residents will have a choice and will use the track.

 

AC:  agrees – was about to say the same.

 

CS, in response:

-       to FC, regarding the land adjacent to the church, officers haven’t ignored English Heritage comments – the land is intended to be kept as a buffer. A legal agreement to make sure it remains available only to the church can’t be done, but an agreement to ensure it remains undeveloped is a possibility;

-       regarding access, as mentioned previously, the Manor Court access road is a ransom strip and not deliverable.  Highways officers don’t object to the proposed access through the adopted public road; it is not ideal but is adequate.

 

MJC, in response:

-       regarding the suggested legal agreement, would like to reiterate that Officers have not dismissed English Heritage’s comments.  The separation between the church and the development site is important, but at this stage no legal agreement is needed to deliver that buffer of land – the development does this anyway.  Legal agreements are used to make unacceptable developments acceptable, and this one is already acceptable, without any legal agreement. Members will remember a similar situation at Balcarras Road, where the legal agreement was subsequently lifted;

-       can see why FC wants an agreement of that nature but this is a false way of considering it.  Should put faith in the planning system to control future use of the land  Any future application would have to take account of English Heritage’s opinion that development here would compromise the setting of the listed church; a legal agreement is not necessary.

 

CH:  we are part way through the local plan.  Can it be referenced there?  Can the Committee make a recommendation that it be included?  Then any future planning application would be referred to the local plan, and the buffer could be enforced.

 

FC:  there are three points to look at.  (1) the suggestion of a legal agreement by English Heritage would make an otherwise unacceptable planning application acceptable; without it, this is not an acceptable planning application; (2) Officers are saying they will take English Heritage advice in the future, so why not now?; (3) Officers are arguing that a legal agreement isn’t needed, but they cannot anticipate how things will go in the future – this is the conservation area, an important 12^th-century church, a tourist attraction, people live around; the Cheltenham Plan is in draft form – can anything go into that to protect it?  It is all about weighing doubt against certainty – doubt that any proposed development on the land might not get planning permission against the certainty that the land cannot be built on.  Continues to recommend a legal agreement should go ahead.

 

GB:  is this a formal move to make the application subject to a legal agreement?

 

FC:  yes.

 

CH:  the proposal should still be refused whether a legal agreement is added or not, legal agreements can be varied, but a local plan policy would give further protection and provide clear evidence of planning policy that can be referred to.

 

BF:  supports FC – this application should be supported by a legal agreement, which will make the situation clear in the future.  Members have talked many times about legal agreements – some are in perpetuity, but this depends on how they are drawn up and how they are agreed.  If we’re serious, it should be a legal agreement to protect the church.  This land is in the middle of Swindon Village Conservation Area, and is not a brownfield site – it has not been built on in living memory – and very close to the church, which is one of the oldest buildings in the borough.  This piece of land must be protected very strongly.

 

PT:  what is so difficult about a legal agreement? Is it particularly onerous?  Why is this not fine with Officers?

 

HM:  the Heritage and Conservation Officer’s opinion would be welcome here – she has commented in the report that the land has been set aside for a graveyard extension and new trees will provide visual separation between the church and the new development. 

 

CS, in response:

-       to FC and BF, officers agree with English Heritage’s comments on the value of the land, but don’t feel a legal agreement is needed.  However, if Members feel they would like a legal agreement included as part of the resolution, this can be done.

 

KR, in response:

-       the parcel of land is essential for the setting of the church – cannot stress this enough – and should be left as an open space for landscaping. Is otherwise comfortable with the scheme, which is in keeping with the settlement pattern of the village – not too dense, over-developed or inappropriate, so will not cause any disturbance.  Agrees that the setting of the church and this piece of land are critical.

 

GB:  suggests members vote on FC’s amendment to add a legal agreement to the recommendation.

 

AC:  asks if the vote will be on the application as a whole

 

CL, in response:

-       to clarify, the motion to be voted on would be effectively to amend the substantive motion to a delegated permit subject to the completion of a s106 agreement and it is the amendment motion which is going to be voted on first.

 

BF:  the legal agreement needs to be added to the recommendation, otherwise the outcome will not be what Members are seeking.

 

MJC, in response:

-       understands what Members want to do; officers will have to go back to the applicant to decide on the wording for the legal agreement.  It could state that there can be no development on the site, or that there can be limited development which only the church can deliver.  To say no development at all is easier, but there is the issue of its proximity to the church and being used as a potential graveyard extension.

 

FC:  we need a legal agreement with this application.  It should state that there can be no further applications on this site.  This should be a condition of planning consent – no planning consent should be sought for any further development of this site.

 

MJC, in response:

-       to clarify, the legal agreement will relate to the land shaded purple only;

-       the agreement should state ‘no development’ not ‘no applications’.

 

FC:  this is acceptable, but if the land is disposed of in the future, it should still be protected.

 

MS:  the legal agreement should state that ‘before building work starts, the freehold of the land will be transferred to the church’.

 

MJC, in response:

-       the church might not want the land;

-       if Members delegate the decision back to Officers, they can create a form of words for the legal agreement, to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair, to ensure the parcel of land won’t be developed in perpetuity, and this will be carried over if ownership of the land is transferred. 

 

FC:  confirms agreement with this approach

 

 

AL:  if no development is allowed on the parcel of land, what will happen to it?  It would be preferable if it was transferred to the church for use as a graveyard extension.

 

MB:  if the land shaded purple on the drawings was in third party ownership, we would not be having this discussion.  Would have to vote against the scheme if the parcel of land was not kept separate.

 

GB:  there are two separate issues being discussed here:  the vote on FC’s motion to add a legal agreement, and the vote on the application itself.

 

AC:  when Members asked, if they vote on FC’s motion, whether they would be approving or discussing the application in full, the legal officer said they will be.

 

CL, in response:

-       the motion by FC is to amend the substantive motion from permit to a delegated permit subject to a legal agreement;

-       that motion may or may not be carried;

-       either way the substantive motion itself will still then need to be voted upon.

 

KS:  how much weight can be placed on a legal agreement?  Should this not be done through the planning process – as part of the Cheltenham Plan?  A legal agreement might not be worth the paper it’s written on.  Have always been told that covenants are not planning matters.

 

CL, in response:

-       land covenants are generally private matters and not part of the planning process, but an S106 agreement is a planning matter, provided for under planning legislation.  , They are typically made to be binding on successors in title.  The legislation provides that obligations in an s106 agreement should only be taken into account where they are necessary to make the development acceptable.   

 

AC:  if the land is transferred to the church, would the church need planning permission to turn it into a graveyard?  Would a legal agreement scupper that?

 

MJC, in response:

-       it would be harder to deliver, there would need to be a variation to the legal agreement and planning permission for change of use.  This was alluded to earlier – the condition could state ‘no development unless for a graveyard extension’. This was the ultimate officer advice and if included, the reason why officers do not consider a legal agreement to be necessary – any proposal would be considered through the planning process.

 

Vote on FC’s amendment to make the substantive motion a delegated permit subject to a legal agreement providing that the “purple land” will not be built on, with the exact wording within the agreement to be formed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

8 in support

2 in objection

3 abstentions

Amendment Motion carried

 

BF:  the original report stated that the proposal fits in well with the settlement pattern of the existing village, would not have a harmful impact on the conservation area or setting of the church.  Would not disagree with any of this – has no objection to the development on these grounds, but objects to the officer comment that the proposal is in accordance with Policy CP7.  Members spent a lot of time last month discussing whether a development was a high enough standard of architectural design and complementary and respectful to neighbouring development.  The dwellings proposed here are not bungalows – they are chalet houses, 1m higher than the bungalows in Manor Court.  The houses are town houses – and this is a village.  The design has no architectural value.  The addition of Velux windows is contrary to Policy CP4.  CP7 requires a high standard of design – this is not. This site can be developed with quality building, but should be of a better design.  The monopitch roofs of the bungalow would lead to problems of overlooking.  Transport problems have been raised, including vehicles turning on the shared surface, and access for refuse vehicles.  The shared space is already tight, and refuse vehicles are likely to get bigger.  According the Highways officers,  there will be room for a car and a refuse vehicle to pass on the road, but it will be very tight.  There are anomalies in the highways report, including an accident that was never logged, a traffic census which omitted buses, and flawed data.  To conclude, this proposal is not in keeping with CP7 – not of high architectural value, doesn’t complement the village or conservation area, and lowers the standard of the area.  Wants to see the land developed but not like this.

 

AC:  agrees with BF, but of the view the application can’t be turned down because the architecture is mundane.  This was an opportunity for a fantastic design but what has been presented are boring boxes.  Is also concerned about the lane, and with Ubico vans and mothers with prams, it could be dangerous. 

 

Vote on amended substantive motion

8 in support

3 in objection

2 abstentions

DELEGATED PERMIT SUBJECT TO A LEGAL AGREEMENT