Agenda item

 

Application Number:			15/01441/OUT
Location:	Land off  Harp Hill, Charlton Kings
Proposal:	Outline application for the erection of dwelling (revised submission following refusal of 14/01612/OUT)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Delegated Refusal
Committee Decision:			Delegated Refusal
Letters of Rep:		7	Update Report:		i.      Officer comments ii.     Letter from agent (emailed to Members, 18th November)

 

MJC introduced this outline application, which aims to establish the principle of development on the site and access issues, with other matters to be dealt with under a future reserved matters application.  A previous application was refused on two grounds: firstly, it was cramped, inappropriate to the site, and harmful to the AONB; and secondly, due to highways access and visibility issues.  The applicant has now provided a transport analysis, which states that the refusal reasons on highways grounds should be removed.  As set out in the blue update, there is some confusion around the submitted drawings and relative dimensions:  the drawing is annotated with visibility splays 50m to the east and 54m to the west, but the actual dimensions appear to be shorter.  MJC has spoken to County Council colleagues regarding this, and remains uncomfortable on this point, as visibility is so important, especially here, and could potentially require access to third party land to comply.  The recommendation is therefore that Members refuse as set out in the report, and delegate back to officers the power to explore the highway safety issue further.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Mike Frost, on behalf of applicant, in support

As a family member of the applicant, would like to explain why they feel harshly treated by the officer recommendation to refuse, particularly as it appears to be a borderline decision.  The previous application was refused because it had no support from highways officers, but this application has their full support.  Was unaware of the update regarding dimensions, so has no knowledge of any reservations around this.  It was also refused because of concerns that any new dwelling on this site would be cramped.  This is subjective, and shows inconsistency, as other applications have been permitted on adjacent land, which are more cramped in scale and size relative to plot.  The details of the scheme would be set out under reserved matters; the proposed dwelling is for family use, would not be cramped, and would be appropriate to the area.  Is asking for consistency here; the Battledown Estate includes many examples of small houses next door to larger ones, and only 300m from the site are four houses side by side.  The objections are not balanced; of 13 neighbours consulted, only four have objected, several of whom have already developed their plots.  Neither the parish council or Battledown Trustees have any objection, and the Civic Society called the previous scheme exciting, and hoped for something bold at the next stage.

 

 

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones, agent, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of the residents of Kings Welcome, Harp Hill, who have concerns about access via third party land, and object to impact of the proposed dwelling on character of the AONB and the unsafe vehicular access.  There have been no highways objection, but neighbours don’t agree, and have provided an independent highways report to the local authority.  This shows that only 40m visibility to east can be achieved without encroaching on third party land – the Highways Authority says 50m is required. It’s true that a condition could be included, requiring the hedging to be removed to aid visibility, but under the NPPG, conditions such as this should only be included where there is a reasonable prospect of the land in question being available during the life of the planning permission. As the neighbours here will not make the land available, it would therefore be inappropriate to allow such a condition.  Regarding the character of the area and cramped nature of the proposal, agrees with the officer recommendation, and believes that Local Plan Policies CP7 and CO2, as well as the SPD on Garden and Infill Sites, are all appropriate refusal reasons.  In addition, as the proposed dwelling cannot be safely accessed and visibility splays are insufficient on highways land, suggests conflict here with Policy TP1.

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  MJC has suggested that Members vote for the final decision to be delegated back to officers once the highways issue has been sorted out.  What if Members think development is okay on this land, provided the access is okay?  Personally thinks something could be put here – the plot doesn’t enhance the area as it is, and a house with a cared-for garden would be an improvement.  Would vote in favour of that but if the access isn’t safe, there is no option but to vote against it.

 

BF:  supported the previous scheme, and has not changed his mind.  The access issue has been dealt with by the highways authority and is considered okay, and after all, two houses have been using the access for many years, and the accident report is minimal.  Notes at para. 1.14 of the report that the officer has considered the potential impact of this proposal on the scenic beauty of the AONB.  Walks round Cheltenham every week, and made a point of looking down on this site from Aggs Hill/Butterfly Wood.  Could not see the site at all, but could clearly see the site where two houses were permitted last month, and not long ago, we gave permission for 14 houses in the AONB, at the top end of the GCHQ Oakley site.   The decision today is one of principle – could this site be developed? – and cannot find any reason to say no.  Cheltenham doesn’t have a five-year land supply, and no-one has the right to a view.  Other houses in the area have grown, and this proposal is not a bad change.

 

PB:  considers this a very fine judgement and anticipates another close vote.  There is always talk of how finite land is in the borough, and it’s clear that this plot could support development.  We are desperately short of space for building houses and it’s important that we use any land available to maximum potential.  Still has a big concern about the access – we’re told the visibility splay will need the adjacent land, but the owner is not going to allow it.  Can members approve the application knowing this land will not be forthcoming?

 

LS:  has been looking at the refusal reasons from the scheme which was turned down last year.  The main concerns were the detrimental effect on the AONB, cramped nature of the proposal, and highways concerns.  Noted on Planning View that any dwelling on this tiny parcel of land would be very cramped, with a significant negative impact on neighbouring properties, especially Kings Welcome.  There have been no material changes since the last application regarding the rural character of the area and the AONB.  Of course it is important that Members are mindful of the need to provide housing, but to suggest that this single dwelling makes any meaningful contribution is not credible.  Will vote against it.

 

AM:  struggles with road access as a refusal reason as two properties already use this as their main access and there are no accident reports.  It’s always possible to argue that it would be nice not to develop or change anything, but as BF says, we have approved similar developments close by.  This may be only one unit, but they all add up, and if it was anywhere else in the town, would we have the same view?  Can see no reason to refuse.

 

HM:  when Kings Welcome and The Bredons were built, there was no SPD on Garden Land and Infill Sites.  If there had been, we would not have allowed them to be built with the same access.  Now we have the SPD and we cannot go against policy.  If this proposal was elsewhere in the town, we would be refusing it.

 

MS:  agrees with HM.  If we approve, we are going against our own policy, and against Paragraph 115 of the NPPF which talks about conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB.  The other houses on the driveway have been there a long time, before the current policy came into play.  Supports the officer recommendation.

 

LS:  echoes MS’s comments, and would also say there is no similarity between this and the application for two houses considered at Planning Committee recently.  They are lower down Harp Hill, and that is all the two schemes have in common.

 

BF:  regarding access, as county councillor has discussed with highways officers situations where people don’t keep their hedges trimmed and the highways authority has the right to insist they cut them back to improve visibility.  If this scheme is permitted, there can be additional signs, and the ability to improve visibility rests with Highways.  Members must bear in mind the permission granted for two houses two months ago, and the 13-14 houses permitted at the top of the Oakley site which change the view dramatically and will stand out far more than anything proposed here.  This site cannot be seen from the road, only by walking right up the drive.  The only visual impact will be on two houses, including Kings Welcome – nothing else. 

 

SW:  the proposal will be of benefit to the area, more than the scrubby bit of land which is there now.  If it is approved today, can there be a condition regarding the height of the future dwelling, restricting it to 1-1.5 storeys?

 

LS:  Members are being asked to make a decision in principle today – is it okay to build here?  If permitted, we will be saying it is okay to building low-quality dwellings in the AONB, and this is contrary to policy.

 

KS:  given the sensitivity of the site, was the applicant encouraged to provide a full application including the proposed design of the property, rather than an outline application?

 

PB:  why does LS say it will be a low-quality development?  This is a highly sought-after area, and the land is capable of supporting a house.  Only highways issue remain a concern.

 

JF:  regarding the SPD on Garden Land and Infill Sites, Members fought long and hard with officers to get it, and now are proposing to break it.  It should not be set aside.

 

MJC, in response:

-       regarding the highways matter:  in the original report, the County Council recommended no objection to the application.  After it was published, a number of representations were received from neighbouring properties concerned about the visibility splays, which resulted in further interrogation of the issue;

-       the drawings from the transport consultant submitted with the application show a green area at the access point, and the two paragraphs above refer to the requires dimensions for visibility splays as 50m to the right/east and 54m to the west;

-       however, the actual measurements on this scale drawing do not stack up – they are short – and hence the discussion with Highways today;

-       there may be a genuine reason for this discrepancy, such as the curve of the road, but officers have been unable to check this and cannot therefore be satisfied as to whether this access arrangement is adequate or not;

-       officers need more time to explore and discuss the issue with a highways consultant, so are asking Members to delegate the decision back to officers to allow this further discussion.  Apologises for any confusion, but feels it is right to explore the matter further;

-       it may be that the drawing is correct and access is safe, but would take comfort from ensuring that this is the case;

-       in addition, the visibility splays shown in the drawing do not rely on access to third party land, and could be ensured by trimming the hedges back.  If the drawing is incorrect, access to third party land may be required;

-       regardless of the principle of development, by delegating the decision back to officers in conjunction with the Chair and Vice-Chair, a sound outcome can be ensured.

 

KS:  officers can’t make the decision without the Chair and Vice-Chair.  Cannot support the proposal as it stands today, but what is the best way to approve/refuse/delegate or defer?  Members need a holistic idea; considers a deferral would be the most transparent way forward.

 

CL, in response:

-       there are a number of options here.  Officer recommendation was originally to refuse due to the detrimental effect of the proposal on the AONB.  Now that there is an extra issue of concern, regarding the visibility splays, officers are asking Members to delegate the refusal back to them, to include the suggested refusal reason regarding the AONB, and if the assurance regarding the visibility splays cannot be provided, to add that as a second refusal reason as well;

-       if the drawing is correct, and adequate visibility splays can be provided for, this will not be included as a refusal reason, but the recommendation of officers is still to refuse.  The final decision on the inclusion the second refusal reason would be in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair;

-       Members are required to make a judgement call here as to whether they consider this outline proposal to be appropriate development or not.  If they agree with officers, the proposal will be refused.  If they don’t agree and that motion is lost, there could then be  a move to permit, with appropriate conditions – a Grampian condition could be considered here;

-       there are various options if Members are minded to permit, but they will have to vote on the officer recommendation to refuse first;

-       another option is deferral, but as the issue of concern appears to be a technical one, would question whether this is necessarily the right way forward.

 

PB:  if Members don’t agree with the refusal reason as stated but have concerns about the highways issue, they can not support the recommendation to refuse and can then move to permit with a Grampian condition.

 

SW:  or they can approve the development subject to the highways issue being sorted out. 

 

BF:  highways officers have the right to demand that hedges are cut back to improve visibility.  There has been no officer comment about this.

 

MJC, in response:

-       conditions can require hedges  to be trimmed when adjacent to the adopted highway, but if visibility splays stray into third party land, a condition would be required to ensure that arrangements are in place to so that hedges on the third party land are also trimmed back.

 

AL:  if both refusal reasons are accepted by Members, and then officers find that the highways refusal reason is not valid, officers will have to make a subjective decision on the land.

 

DS:  there has been no mention of speed on the hill.  Would changing the speed limit not solve the problem?  Realises that this is not a planning issue, but is sure other residents would welcome a change, which would contribute to highway safety in general.

 

 

MJC, in response:

-       to AL, the recommendation would remain that planning permission be refused on principle – this is the judgement made by officers, and they are now asking Members to endorse it or not.  If they do not, an alternative way forward will be found, but officers have already made their judgement and consider the  development unacceptable;

-       to DS, speed limits are indeed beyond the planning system.  The visibility splays proposed are based on the current speed limits, but it’s true that these may be reduced in the future.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse and delegate the decision back to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair pending discussion with highways officers on the visibility splays

10 in support

4 in objection

DELEGATED REFUSAL