Agenda item

15/00681/FUL Land south of 205 Leckhampton Road

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

15/00681/FUL

Location:

Land south of 205 Leckhampton Road, Leckhampton Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of 10 houses and associated works (revised scheme)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation (including in respect of education obligations if policy supports this)

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

Suggested conditions

 

CH introduced the application as above, which was originally scheduled to come to Committee in October but was deferred at the applicant’s request in order that the plans might be revised to address the refusal grounds set out by the officer. The determiningissues are:  principle of development, affordable housing, impact on the AONB, access and highways, impact on neighbouring amenity, drainage and ecology.  Refusal was previously recommended as officers felt the scheme represented inappropriate development on boundary of AONB.  The scheme has now been revised:  the number of dwellings reduced to 10; the height reduced; larger gaps between the dwellings; plots 3 and 8 pulled forward; trees and planting revised; and fencing on the south-west and east boundaries revisited, with the establishment of a management company to maintain the boundaries and landscaped central green area which would be secured by a s106 agreement.  All these revisions have been reviewed in the update.  Officers consider them to overcome previous concerns, and as a result, three consultees – the trees officer, the landscape officer and Architects Panel - have removed their objections.  The recommendation is now to permit subject to an S106 agreement.  For information, the drawing numbers are omitted from Condition 2 due to IT issues – these will be updated as soon as possible.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None

 

Member debate:

PB:  congratulations to officers on a very thorough and professional job with this application, and also to the developer – the scheme looks fantastic, and will be a great place to live.  On Planning View, Members walked 500 yards through a muddy field to see how the site would appear from the AONB, and it was clear that the design will sit very well.  Is sad that the ash trees will be lost, but everyone knows the problems with ash trees; if the proposal is supported, they will have to come down, but we can ensure that appropriate trees are replanted in their place.  Is happy to support this scheme.

 

HM:  has a question about affordable housing.  The 28-house scheme currently being developed is an excellent one; what is the affordable housing provision with this scheme, and how does it relate to this scheme for a further ten houses?  The two developments are essentially one larger one, with the same developer, same access etc. 

 

SW:  would be interested to hear officer response to HM’s comment – is slightly suspicious that the developer seems to be proposing half an estate just under the affordable housing threshold – is there anything we can do to ensure proper provision?  Also would like to know if permitted development rights are to be withdrawn?  Two houses have been moved forward to avoid impact on the AONB, but the residents might want to build a summer house in the garden and closer to the boundary – we need to keep some control over this.

 

BF:  agrees with SW.  What has been done so far is good, as is the build quality, but is concerned about density – lower in this proposal than in the scheme currently being built out.  The original proposal for 11 or 12 houses is now reduced to ten.  With no five-year land supply, another unit wouldn’t be out of place – the town needs  them, particularly houses of this quality.

 

CM:  is happy with the development but concerned about the conditions during the construction period.  Is there any control over start and finish times, to keep the negative impact on neighbours to a minimum?

 

KS:  this may be a small development, but these are clearly family houses.  Is concerned about the shortage of education provision on this side of town – primary schools are very oversubscribed.  Has there been any discussion with the local education authority?  This should be a consideration for any development in the Leckhampton area – it is already very difficult to get children into local primary and senior schools nearby.

 

CH, in response:

-       to SW, there are two recommended conditions which withdraw PD rights: one for extensions which also covers structures in the gardens and a second, in anticipation - given the levels of the site - that householders might wish to seek to change these to level the gardens so that to do any earth works in the gardens, residents will need to put in a formal planning application;

-       to BF, re. density, the original report stated that this proposal is situated on the rural edge of Cheltenham, a sensitive boundary.  At this point, where there is a transition from urban grain to a rural context, a larger gap between the houses was felt to be appropriate;

-       to HM, re affordable housing, the original scheme of 28 houses carried a requirement for 10% affordable units – lower than policy requires, due to viability issues.  The site now being considered was not available at that time.  Now, two years later, the land is available; officers have to have regard to the reasonable requirements of the NPPF and consider only the development and red line site in question for any planning application;

-       officers have wrestled with this issue and taken legal advice.  CL will explain further.

 

CL, in response:

-       this question , as to whether there has been an superficial division of sites, to avoid affordable housing contributions, comes up quite often  as Members are quite rightly raising now each case will very much be fact dependent - case law provides for a global view to be taken with the consideration of factors such as ownership, the physical relationship of the sites and the interdependence of the developments in making such a judgement;

-       it is clear from the physicality of this site that the original development could be linked to a further one later on;

-       however, no single factor is determinative in determining whether there has been a  superficial division of the site; the fact that is it is the same developer will itself not be determinative , as if it was without further, as regards a site that has become available later on this would be penalising an adjacent developer as against another developer taking  the current land for development;

-       officers have considered all these issues, and do not consider the developer to have deliberately set out to develop the land in two stages in order to avoid an affordable housing contribution.

 

CH, in response:

-       to KS’s question about education provision, Gloucestershire County Council is a statutory consultee, and was sent the application for comment in April.  No response has been provided;

-       when officers speak to the County about additional firming-up of the S106 and landscape boundary, they can ask again if anything can be brought forward regarding education, should Members wish;

-       to CM, regarding times of operation, Condition 8 requires a Construction Method Statement to be in place before work starts, including intended hours of construction operation.  An informative can be included should Members wish, from Environmental Health, setting out best practice guidance and directing developers’ attention towards it.

 

JF:  there has been some correspondence about wheel-washing and mud on the roads, which should be dealt with by the developers; otherwise it can lead to problems.

 

CH, in response:

-       the Construction Method Statement requires wheel-washing to be carried out in the site. This is an enforceable condition, and officers can speak to the developer if necessary to ensure it is being followed up.

 

JF:  will be grateful if it can be followed up.

 

CH, in response:

-       the recommendation is to permit subject to an S106 agreement regarding landscaping.  Members will have to move for an amendment to the recommendation if they want to include discussion about education.

 

KS:  would like to do this.  Is ward councillor for the neighbouring ward, and school provision comes up over and over again with constituents concerned about the lack of places.  We need more houses, but must ensure that school places are available too and look for contributions from developers to help this happen.  This isn’t just an inconvenience; it is a social issue.  Children in Leckhampton are being offered school places out of Cheltenham or on the other side of town.  These houses are designed for families, and we must bear this is mind with any such development. Would welcome some help for the Leckhampton area.  Would like to move to amend the recommendation to include education.

 

CL, in response:

-       to confirm, KS’s move is to amend the recommendation to require the S106 to cover education obligations, provided that policy supports it?

 

KS:  yes.  Would like officers to have a conversation with the County.  Is disappointed that county officers haven’t come back already with a consultee response.

 

 

Vote on KS’s move to include education obligations in the S106 agreement, if policy supports this

11 in support

3 in objection

MOTION CARRIED 

 

 

AM:  it’s a shame not to have had the chance to speak before this vote.  Doesn’t disagree with KS regarding education provision, but we have to keep a sense of proportion.  This is a development for 10 houses.  The County Council was consulted and made no comment.  To make a specific case here is unreasonable; the developer could say the local authority is making demands not asked for by the education authority, and not being made on other developments.  Considers this amendment to be a serious error of judgement.

 

JF:  KS proposed the amendment because the County has not provided any response; the amendment requires officers to have a discussion only.

 

KS:  would expect any requirement to be in line with policy.  If this is looked at and considered unreasonable, would not expect any education requirement to be imposed.

 

PT:  if there was no education requirement on the original site, might this not put extra strain on the smaller site to include it?  Agrees with the overall concept, but is concerned that the scheme being considered today is only part of the site.  The other site has more than 10 houses; there is surely conflict here?

 

CH, in response:

-       the original application 28 units included an S106 contribution for education.

 

JW:  has done a quick calculation:  these ten houses will proved 46 bedrooms, of which ten are likely to be for adults and 36 for children.  That represents quite a lot of school demand.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit subject to S106 agreement including obligations in respect of education if policy supports this)

13 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT subject to S106 agreement    

 

 

Supporting documents: