Agenda item

EB introduced the application as above, with officer recommendation in the report to permit.  One late issue concerns the size of the application site and whether an affordable housing contribution is required.  According to the application, the site measures 0.44h, and Policy HS4 in the Local Plan requires affordable housing contribution for schemes of more that 15 dwellings or sites larger that 0.5h.  Officers have noted a small parcel of land to the rear of the site, and it is not clear whether or not this is owned by the applicant, or to be included as part of the garden.  This needs to be explored.  If it is to be included in the site, the size of the plot will be more that 0.5h, triggering Policy HS4, which requires a 40% contribution.  If Policy HS4 is implemented, the council should explore whether to seek a commuted sum from the applicant.  A revised recommendation, therefore, is to permit, with the final decision delegated back to officers, subject to resolution of the issue.  If the site is over 0.5h, action will be taken on HS4.

Public Speaking:

Mr James Griffin, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Is grateful for officers’ work on this this site, and commends the report and conclusion that the development is suitable for the site. The scheme is a high-quality development in Cheltenham’s urban area, which has been revised to address concerns of officers and neighbours, which concerned planting, plot detail for Plot 1, and screening for Plot 2.  A neighbour objection has been withdrawn in light of these revisions.  The scheme is supported by the Architects Panel, which considers it well designed and interesting, and the Civic Society, which echoes these comments, liking the modern design and good use of topography.   The Parish Council, Battledown Trustees, and Gloucestershire Highways have not raised any objection.  Regarding the ownership of the land mentioned by the officer, only the land within the red boundary is in the applicant’s control; anything beyond is not.  This proposal meets the high standards required by the Local Plan.  Hopes therefore that Members can permit, in line with the office recommendation.

Member debate:

MS:  looking at the block plan, notes that the red line embraces the road/track that serves The Bredons and the property at the back.  Is that correct?  If so the owners of the two new properties will own the access road, and the use of the track by the other houses of the track could become compromised?

PB:  the scheme will not contribute much to Cheltenham’s affordable housing situation, but the views are magnificent and the applicant should be congratulated on an imaginative and contemporary scheme.  Would very much like to see it when finished, as part of a future Completed Schemes tour.  Is happy to support the revised recommendation, it would be good if officers can negotiate a contribution to affordable housing.

JP:  agrees with PB. – the site is spectacular and the view splendid.  We are increasingly seeing more and more innovative designs, which bodes well for Cheltenham.  Supports the scheme; the architect should be congratulated.

LS:  also echoes PB’s comments, but with a small degree of anxiety.  Although the site is technically in the urban area as defined by the Cheltenham Local Plan, there is a rural feel to Harp Hill and residents are concerned that the contemporary design won’t sit well on the edge of the AONB.

EB, in response:

-       access will be via a shared access track, serving Kings’ Welcome, The Bredons, and the two new dwellings.

DS:  is the road therefore owned by the four properties?  This may lead to ownership disputes in the future.

EB, in response:

-       planning only deals with land use, not rights of way and ownership.  The four parties will have to come to an agreement regarding the access track.

HM:  confirms that; if existing residents can demonstrate that track has been used as their access for a certain number of years, there will be no problem – it is a civil matter.

Vote on officer recommendation for a delegated permit, subject to the resolution of the issue of site size and the application of policy HS4

15 in support – unanimous

DELEGATED PERMIT