Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] . [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]

Good evening, members. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'll start the meeting. Welcome to the Cheltenham Borough Council's planning committee, being held on Thursday, the 13th of June, 2024. My name is Councillor Garth Barnes, and I'm the chair of the committee. This meeting is being streamed live to Cheltenham Borough Council's YouTube channel, and the recording of the meeting will be held for four years. If there are any breaks in transmission on to the YouTube stream, the meeting will be adjourned for a short period until any issues are resolved. If you are here to make representation to the meeting, you are consenting to the use of the sound and video recordings for broadcasting and training purposes. Please be aware that CCTV and audio recording is now in operation in the public gallery. The recordings will be held by the council for five months. And please note, a fire alarm test is not expected. So if the alarm does sound, you should immediately make your way to the nearest exit. Right, we'll go into the agenda then. Item one, apologies, there are none. Got a full house, thankfully. Item two, any declarations of interest from any member? Councillor Clark. I went to see the tree on North Place. At the moment I'm asking for declarations of interest, so yeah. [LAUGH] No declarations of interest? Okay. So now we are asking about independent site visits. And Barbara, you want to mention that you've been to the tree? I wanted to see the tree on North Place, yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Any other member? No? No, I'm trying to. Sorry. [LAUGH] I didn't see you waving at me. Yeah, visited 6A, 6B, and I'm very familiar with 6E. Thank you. And we had a fairly full house on the bus, which was really nice. A very good view meeting, so may that continue. Okay, item four, the agenda of the minutes of the last meeting. [COUGH] I don't think we have them to hand to sign at the moment. The next one. They'll be approved at the next one. Okay, thank you. Item five, public questions, there are none. So now we move into item six, which are the applications. And the first one we come to 6A, which is the tree TPO opposite St. Margaret's Road, and I'll ask the officer to introduce the case for us please. Thank you, Chair. Hello, I'm Sam, I'm a trees officer. I know there's some new faces in here today that I've not seen before. I'll give a small introduction to what we're voting on today, because you may not understand how that works. When we create a new TPO, it's provisional for six months. Now, we have to decide whether or not to confirm the TPO, which would make the TPO legal forevermore, or until such time as the tree dies or there's another exemption to the TPO. This TPO has been made in response to, can I get this up on the screen? Fantastic, thank you. This TPO has been made in response to a planning application to develop Car Park North Place, which would remove that tree. It's a London plane, so the TPO is called opposite 22 St. Margaret's Road, because the tree isn't actually in the car park, so it makes sense to call it London plane in the car park, so that's why it's called opposite 22 St. Margaret's Road. Now, for the first month after having served a TPO, anyone can object to it, and then we, rather than having delegated power to confirm it, we bring it to committee, and that's what we're voting on here. We're not here to determine or discuss in any great detail the pros and cons of the proposed development of the car park, North Place. We're only here to decide whether or not to confirm this TPO, okay? Hopefully you've seen this tree or you'll be familiar with it. It's one of very few large trees in that part of town on that street, it sits in the pavement. Now, it reads as a highways tree or a street tree. It's actually within the red line of the proposed development, so it's not within ownership of highways, County Council. It's a view of the tree, a view of the tree. You can see from that angle that the tree does have a slight bias north, and it's growing at a slight angle. And it is disrupting the pavement to the south of the tree. The pavement to the north is unaffected. This tree has been managed by Cheltenham Borough Council as part of the car park historically. So our entries officer, Chris Chavas, has been inspecting it, maintaining it. It hasn't actually had any major works since the Borough Council has been looking after it. Chris has not considered any major works to be necessary, despite the bias and the lien and the damage to the pavement. OK, so the reason for the TPO, as I mentioned in response to a full planning application, and in fact there was a pre-app that came in to determine whether or not a scheme there would be acceptable. In a meeting with the applicant or the agent, the planning officer made it clear that the tree section felt that that tree should stay as part of any full application. Yep, so the full application came in and proposed the removal of that tree. We consider it to be, or I consider it to be a tree of high value in that it has good form. Despite its bias north, it appears to be in good condition. Well, it has a very long life expectancy ahead of it, playing trees can live for hundreds of years. They're fairly fog-resistant, they're fairly pollution-resistant or tolerant, they're good street trees. OK, so what's the policy that we hang this on? It's GI 2, states that the Borough Council will resist the unnecessary felling of trees on private land and will make tree preservation orders in appropriate cases. OK, so as I mentioned at pre-app stage, we made it clear that we felt that tree should be retained. And I consider that given the size of the site, you can't reasonably argue that the removal of the tree is necessary to accommodate the proposal when alternative layouts could be proposed. And the MPPF says that planning decisions should ensure that existing trees are retained wherever possible. OK, so the objection came in from the applicant, more precisely the agent acting on behalf of the applicant for the development of the car park. We've got up-site notices and we always send out copies of the TPO to whoever owns the land. Anyone who lives adjacent who may have a common law right to prune the tree, ward councillors, parish councillors, although in this case there won't be a parish council. Yeah, so the objection came back to say that the tree leans towards the car park, I don't dispute that. The roots are disturbing the footpath to the south of the tree, which presents a potential hazard for pedestrians, especially those with additional mobility needs. And the likely continued disturbance of the footpath, possible disturbance of the highway and potential encroachment or damage to the proposed development. No other letters were received either in support or objection. So to address that objection, yet the tree does lean north, but it doesn't appear to be an issue in terms of its long-term viability or stability. The council has been managing that tree and looking at Google Street View, we don't consider that the lean has worsened. We don't think that it represents a long-term stability issue. There is some disturbance to the pavements to the south of the tree, but if you look at the north of the tree, the pavement is amply wide to get past and the pavement is undisturbed to the north. Disturbance of the highway, I would say, is very unlikely. If at all, then it won't be for decades to come and the highway is broad enough that it could accommodate a bit of disturbance or there are ways and means to overcome such disturbance without removing the tree and the proposed development should have taken account of the tree. They were given advice at Pre-App, very clear that the tree should stay. The purpose of a TPO is not to prohibit development, both can coexist and the size of this site should accommodate both, the development and the tree. My recommendation to you is that we confirm the TPO to protect the tree. The TPO is justified for these reasons, it's a tree of high value, it has a long, safe, useful life expectancy, it's in good condition, it has good form, there is a clear threat to the tree, which is the proposal to remove it, it has excellent public visibility, it's very significant in the centre of town, there are very few other large trees in that area. The development adjacent is possible, even with the tree and local and national policy supports that. So, I think that's everything, that's me. OK, we have no public speakers on this, so does any member have any questions for the officer? Councillor Williams? Do we know when the tree was originally planted? Do I answer the question? Yeah, please do. No. I would estimate the tree is decades rather than centuries, 60ish years, maybe less, 50ish, maybe. It's not an ancient tree, it's not a very, very old tree, but it's a sizeable tree and it could become a very old tree. So, our criteria really for what is a high value tree, a tree of high value, is a tree which makes a significant contribution and has a safe life expectancy of at least 10 years, which is a very low threshold, this tree could live for decades, centuries, it's an important immunity asset to the town, I think. Thank you. Any, got another question? Just quickly, my thoughts were whether it was there when the coach station was there, which is a significant thing for a lot of people in town that's been kind of overlooked a little bit, so it would be nice to have that as I think, yeah, this was here when the coach station was, so thank you. Okay, thank you. Councillor, I'm still getting used to your names, Councillor Allen. Thank you. Just a quick question to ask whether the developer has any onus to continue the maintenance of the tree after the development is built, or who that will fall under after the development is finished. I don't know. That's a very good question. You know, the tree sits within the red line of the development, so it's effectively a private tree, so unless they were to make an agreement with highways, it would be more like the highways and the borough council, that that, you know, pavement perhaps becomes part of the adopted highway, and highways, trees, offices would then assume responsibility for it. Otherwise, it would be in private ownership, and they would have to maintain it. Yeah, you know, it would represent a financial burden to the owner of the tree or the manager of that tree. Yeah, I suppose you do have to consider that when you're making a TPO. It does represent a burden in some respect to whoever owns that tree because they then have to maintain it where before they could have just removed it. I suppose you have to weigh that up against the benefits of the tree to the wider public. Yeah. Any other member questions? No? Interest to debate then, if anybody wants to debate. Councillor Williams. Say hi. Councillor Wheeler. Yeah. Yeah, I think, I know it's not normal to sort of agree with officers or speak in agreement, but no, I think this is a very lonely tree. We need more trees there, and this is a valuable tree, and I'm really keen to see it stay and accept the TPO. Thank you. Councillor Oliver. Thank you, Chair. Yes, from what I can see, the developer's only objection, apart from the lien, is that it would damage the pavement or has damaged the pavement. Well, on the basis of that, almost all the trees that we've got in Cheltenham would have to go, and we're renowned for our trees is what makes Cheltenham special, and the more we've got, the better. Thank you. Any other member? Happy to go to the vote? I don't think there's anything you need to respond to at this stage, do you? No, there isn't. I should say one more thing, I suppose, which is that there are exemptions to TPOs, and one of the exemptions is the implementation of planning permission. So this TPO for us would be a line in the sand. It would prove that we value that tree. Ultimately, if planning permission were granted for the development that included the removal of that tree, the TPO would become exempt. I think you should consider that before voting. Yes, just to clarify, hypothetically, if there's a TPO tree on a development site, that tree isn't protected for all time. If a planning permission is granted where that tree needs to be failed to facilitate that permission, or the approval layout shows that tree gone, the planning permission would overrule that TPO, and so the protection would fall away when planning permission is granted. Councillor Wheeler. So if I'm right, then, we need to be mindful of this when a planning application comes through, that we make sure that we bear this TPO tree with that application to make sure that it stays within the plan. Thank you. Okay, is everybody clear? We are going to try and use the electronic voting system as per the normal council. So I'll hand over to Charlotte to -- oh, is that already up and running? So all those in favour, please indicate. So, I think that's everybody voted, isn't it? Thank you very much indeed, so that is approved and it is unanimous. Thank you. Move on to the next item. Sorry, Councillor Clark, did you have something? Yeah, could I make a point of order, please? Would you mind repeating what we're voting for? Because there has been confusion in the past. Okay. Thank you. Yep, yep, good point. Thank you. So we're now moving on to item 6B, which is Little Duncroft, Evesham Road. We do have a couple of speakers to talk on this. And I would like to ask the planning officer if she would introduce it for us, please. Thank you, Chair. The application is Little Duncroft, Evesham Road. The proposed works is the subdivision of the plot, conversion and authorisation of the existing outbuilding to enable use as a separate dwelling. The works also propose a retrospective 1.8 metre high boundary fence. Councillor Ian Bassett-Smith has requested this application to be determined by planning committee. The next slide is the site location plan. The red line identifies the application site and the blue line identifies the existing dwelling in the applicant's ownership. We have a Google Earth Pro image showing the proposed built building. Next slide is site photos of the built building. We have photos of the street scene showing the proposed completed fence and building. This one is the proposed site layout plan. It shows the built building but also the proposed parking and amenity space. So as discussed in the officer's report, a detached garage was permitted in 2021. Plans on the left show the approved garage. The garage was not built in accordance with the approved plans and the plans on the right show the built building, which is now proposed. The key planning matters are the principle of development, design and layout, impact on neighbouring amenity, highway safety and climate change. All of the above matters have been discussed in the planning officer's report. Officer recommendation. Officers consider the subdivision of the plot to be out of character with the existing pattern of development. The new dwelling would have a smaller plot than that of the surrounding development and would be out of character given its position, which sits forward of the existing dwelling. Officers also consider the proposed fencing adjacent to Euston Road to be of a poor standard of design, which has a harsh visual impact on the character of the street scene. With regards to the Cotswold Beechwood Special Area of Conservation, a draught at UU and financial contribution was submitted this week. This has been sent to our legal team. As the UU has not been completed, officers still recommendation this refusal, this reason for refusal at this stage. The recommendation is therefore to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the officer's report. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. So we have two speakers. Our first one is Nathan Maddox, the agent on behalf. So would you like to come forward to the speaker's slot? You will have five minutes. And I will give you a reminder about 30 seconds beforehand. Are you finished? Whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good evening, Chairman, members. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak on behalf of the applicant to explain why we feel it would be perfectly reasonable for you to go against the recommendation on this occasion. Mr and Mrs Lawrence live at Little Duncroft. As you will have seen from your site visit, they have invested heavily in the property to create their long-term family home. They are greatly involved in town life and the local community, volunteering at many organisations and sports clubs. The application explains that the ultimate purpose for the building and why it has been constructed as it has is to provide a space for Mrs Lawrence's mother to reside in her later years, located close to a family who can provide ongoing support and care. That time has not yet arrived, and so the applicants wish to use this space beneficially as an Airbnb and short-term let's. This is not uncommon and is regularly undertaken across the town. There are several examples of garages and annexes being used in the same manner near the application site, being ideally located close to town and the race course. Indeed, these activities and the hundreds across the town contribute positively to the town, its economy and status as a tourist destination. The committee report confirms that the use of the garage for residential purposes does not cause amenity concerns, and the principal residential property within the site is acceptable. Objection to the scheme falls on the subjective view that the layout and arrangement does not conform to the character of the area. I hope that you will have read the letter sent to you yesterday afternoon, which provides an analysis of local character and identify the officers when considering an application for a new dwelling just 30 metres from the site found there to be no prevailing local character. Such an objection now is inconsistent with the previous decision of the council, and as you may know, consistency in decision-making is essential to uphold public confidence in the planning system. The letter circulated yesterday also gave a snapshot of local plot sizes and confirmed that after subdivision, the plot with the converted garage is equivalent to neighbouring plots. Permission already exists for a 1.5-metre fence along the boundary of the Evesham Road. The application seeks to retain the existing fence, which is just 30 centimetres higher. The section of the Evesham Road is a very street scene created in part by the many different boundary treatments with the walls commonly standing at 2 metres high. The 1.8-metre fence has the benefit of preventing trespass and littering in the applicant's property during busy times, such as race week. The 1.8-metre timber fence, which is softened by a mature tree standing behind it, is an appropriate feature in the street scene, and there will be no visual benefit to the street scene overall by reducing its height. We may hear today about the site's planning history and local concern regarding the retrospective elements of the application. It's acknowledged that when the garage was constructed, parts of it did not align with the original consent. However, the applicant has engaged fully with the council's planning enforcement team, and this application seeks to rectify the errors of misalignment. Again, it's important to know that officers don't find the building breaches policy in terms of its physical dimensions or its relationship with neighbouring properties considering that their amenity is protected. In short, rather than being contrary to policy as suggested, we believe this scheme is fully compliant with the relevant policies. The consistent application principles established by recent applications nearby and an objective assessment of local character should instead lead to a positive decision here. We hope you will agree in this case and respectfully ask you to grant planning permission. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Well within your time. I'd ask Councillor Tooke, please, if he would come to the... You two have five minutes, and I will remind you 30 seconds before the end. Thank you, Chairman. When a version of this building, which bears a limited relationship to what was actually built, was eventually given planning permission, the conditions of the planning permission were explicit. Condition 8 of the approval of applications stated that, quote, The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be occupied other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Little Dancroft, as shown on the approved plans. The reason given was unambiguous, quote, Use of the outbuilding as independent residential accommodation and the resultant subdivision of the plot are inappropriate due to the size and configuration of the plot and the potential harmful impact upon the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties, having regard to the provisions of the Cheltenham Plan 2020 and the Joint Call Strategy 2017. The scale of the building and the position had been negotiated with the applicant prior to the application to ensure that the planning commission had permission so he couldn't be abused and to ensure that it was indeed used as a garage and gym. The report stated that, The above concerns were discussed with the applicant who agreed to remove the first floor residential element, reduce the footprint and scale with the proposed outbuilding and reposition the building closer to the main house. The applicant has also confirmed that the use of the proposed building would remain ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling and would not be occupied separately or independently from the main dwelling. Finally, despite all the stipulations, the report stated that, quote, Officers also maintain their reservations about the potential for converting the building into a self-contained residential unit at some point in the future, as originally proposed. As such, a condition has been added to ensure that the use of the proposed outbuilding remains ancillary to the main building and is not occupied independently of the main dwelling. The planning officers were right to have reservations about the building. Their express concerns were ignored. A significantly larger building was built, which is being rented as an Airbnb. I'm supportive of the planning officer's view that planning permission for this building should be declined because I agree with the original planning permission, which has been substantively ignored by the applicant. I would go further, however. I believe that the existing approvals and conditions should remain in their entirety, nothing more, nothing less. The existing approval was correct. Firstly, the use of the building should remain restricted to being ancillary to Little Duncroft, and this should exclude short-term rental. Secondly, the physical building should conform with the scale and finishes approved. And finally, the planning conditions previously imposed, including those relating to fence and native hedgerow, should be actioned. These strictures will still permit use as a garage with gym and storage, but will reduce the potential for unapproved use and help with the amenity impact concerns clearly articulated in the letter of objection from the closest neighbour. Nothing of relevance has changed. The applicant's representation that a recent approval at 3 Cleveland Drive sets relevant precedent is, in my opinion, entirely flawed and a complete red herring because the other building is not similar in design to this building. It is a single-storey, flat-roof building. The Little Duncroft building was also built before this new building was built. So how can a building that hasn't been built be used as a precedent? Planning permission for this building should be declined, and it is critical that planning enforcement then enforce the terms of the original conditions. The facts have not changed, so we should not change our minds. Thank you.

• Thank you, Councillor Tooke. You're also in time. Members, questions? Councillor Baker?
• Thank you. First of all, in the officer's report, she referred to UU, and I'd rather you refer to actually what that is, because not all members will be aware. In fact, you can just clarify that. The agents made reference to the fence being 30 centimetres higher than that which was approved. So we approved, or officers approved, a fence of 1.5 metres. I understand that this is 1.8 metres. So I'm just trying to work out what that difference is. That's about a foot or so, isn't it? Not three centimetres? You just can't, is it? 30 centimetres. Could you just clarify for me, not being conversant with the metres, but I'm still working feet and inches on the differences.
• Thank you, yes, please.
• I've only ever worked in metric, so I can only talk in metric. But yeah, you're correct, it's 30 centimetres. I don't know, I don't know. I've never worked in foot. I've been told it's one foot.
• Thank you. Any other member? Councillor Allen?
• Thank you, Chair. Yes. Am I right in saying that the previous planning decisions on an application, the result of those decisions and the execution of that result all count as material planning considerations? Because I've seen it on some websites, some council websites that it is, but I couldn't see it listed in the presentation. Am I correct in this, or was it part of principle development? Any clarity on that would be appreciated.
• Yes, you're correct. It is an important material consideration in terms of the structure and the principle of that structure in that location. Just to bear in mind that the proposal is larger than previously approved, the footprint is larger and it is higher, and the materials are different as well, and the fenestration has been changed. Thank you, but the principle of a structure in that location has been established. Thank you.
• Councillor Bamford?
• You're returning to the hedge for a minute. As I understand it yet, it is that much higher than we permitted. Is it made of the same material as was proposed in the original application, i.e. was it a close-boarded fence? Was that the original intention? Thank you.
• I didn't deal with the original one, but I believe so, it is the same. It's just to reduce the height. It got permission to reduce the height of that fence.
• But that material is actually within the fence?
• Yes, it has permission for events 1.5 metres high with vegetation as well, with landscaping. Behind.
• Behind, okay, so it was intended that that close-boarded fence, although that is completely out with the current street scene that was the intention that we permitted?
• I was told by the previous, sorry, I was told by the previous officer the intention was to reduce the height of the fence, propose landscaping to encourage it to come over the fence to try and mitigate that harsh impact. Thank you.
• Thank you. Any other member with any questions? Okay, we'll go into the debate then. Open to debate. Councillor Allen.
• Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just wish to speak against this development from what we've heard tonight and from what we've seen in the report. And I think the strongest material planning consideration is the fact that it is in disregard of previous planning applications. I think it's, I mean, for the reasons stated in that planning application, for violating those applications, but I also think it's a principle of trust. And I think there is a significant degree of trust that's put in the developer when that planning application is passed and to retrospectively change it. I mean, I know we're voting on the application as if the building did not exist, but what is to say that that application, if approved, would be following the same metrics that have clearly been breached in other planning applications? I think, you know, there's a precedent here. And if the officers have refused it, I'm of the mind to stick with the officers. Thank you.
• Thank you, Councillor Allen. Councillor Baker.
• Thank you, Chair. Well, sadly, trust is not our planning consideration. So we have to consider the application before us and vote on it. And then if what is built is not in accordance with what we approved, then planning enforcement will then take its place. I've got mixed feelings about this scheme, if I'm really honest. What's already gone before us has gone before us. And we now start from scratch with this application. I think we need to be mindful that we do not have a five-year land supply. And whilst this is only for one residential unit, nevertheless, that is a relevant consideration when we are considering this application. And as we know, inspectors take into account housing supply quite seriously and understandably. And when you look at the report, this is an unbalanced judgment, weighing up the five-year land supply against the potential damage of the development. And the considerations are highway safety, where there's no objections there, trees and landscaping, there's no issues there, impacts on open community. I don't think there is an impact on neighboring community, personally. Climate change, well, I think this building ticks all the boxes of climate change, design and layout, and you can argue about design. I don't think it's the most attractive building in the world by any stretch of the nation, but it is what it is. And I think also, for me, what's important is that the neighbors who actually, to the right of this development, actually come into the road, none of them are objective to this. And they're the ones that are gonna be impacted by this, seeing traffic coming in or traffic going out. And there's been no objections from them. My big concern is the really ugly fence. And I don't know whether the officers could put up one of the photographs that they had originally showing the fence on the street scene, because there was a fence, along the whole of that boundary on Easton Road is hedges, apart from this horrible fence. And if I was minded to approve this, I'd want a condition that we reduce the height of that fence to what was previously agreed at 1.5. Yeah, you just. That's it there. So it's just a sore thumb. And I'm really disappointed that the applicant couldn't have been a little bit more considerate about this, because that is ugly. And so if I'm minded, and I'll listen to what people say, if I'm minded to move approval, I would want that condition. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Baker. Yes, I do feel that I'm with officers on this, and whereas a lot of what Councillor Baker says, I do agree with. It's clear to me that a plan went in for this, which we agreed. But there was no intention of building what was agreed, and that there was a second plan, I believe was probably already in place to build. But that's, you know, maybe that's not. But I fear that, well, I think the officers' remarks bear the most weight for me, and I'm very concerned that if we allow people to build something totally different to what was agreed, we just open the floodgates for anybody to build anything they, oh, excuse me, anything they wish. But no, I'm happy with the officers' reasons for refusal. Thank you, Councillor. Any other member? Councillor Oliver. Yeah, I think there's also an issue with the proximity to Dameway House, and their loss of amenity. If this building is used as an Airbnb, it's a far different use to a garage, which is what was originally conditioned. There is no impact on your neighbours if you've got a garage. If you've got people staying and being noisy all the time, it's an infringement on their way of life. So I'll be supporting the officers' recommendation. Thank you. Any other member? Councillor Oliver. Just to respond briefly to the points that Councillor Baker made in terms of the five-year land supply, I don't think that the principle of a development should be infringed because it would bring an extra house onto the supply. I think there are more productive ways, and indeed, I'm supportive of developments where, for example, the Oakley Farm development proposed last week, 250 homes supplied. I think it was, in many cases, a good site. And of course, I'm not gonna speak at length about the development, but it just shows that I think principles should be upheld when we're looking at these goals. We shouldn't be so goal-focused that we miss the point of having material design considerations, and also considering previous planning applications that came forward as well. But I take count of Baker's point about trust. I'm not so much speaking about trust as a principle for refusal. I'm just saying there is a precedent set there. Thank you.
• Thank you. I see no other hands being raised, so I'll be happy to go to the vote. Do you want to come back, Victoria, on anything? No? Okay, well, the recommendation is for refuse. Which is a little unusual. And again, we will be following the voting pattern on the voting system on the screen in front of us. So all those in favor, please show.
• Sorry, Mr. Chairman, can I clarify?
• Yep.
• It will be in favor of the recommendation to refuse. Is that clear for everybody? So we have eight for, two against, and one abstention. So that is refused. Thank you very much indeed.
• Thank you.
• So we now come on to item 6C, which is the Le Campton Reservoir in Le Campton Hill. I'll just wait for the officer to get ready. We do have three speakers on this, so once the officer's introduced it, I will introduce the speakers. (mumbling) (mumbling) We're having a slight technical problem getting it onto the screen, so we can wait. (mumbling) (mumbling) (mumbling) (mumbling) (mumbling) Please introduce it for us.
• Thank you, Chair. So this application relates to the Le Campton Reservoir, and the application seeks consent for a change of use of the existing reservoir to create a single dwelling with associated works, including access and landscaping. The application is a planning committee at the request of Councillor Hallward, who raises concerns regarding impact on the AOMB and the green belt, access and highway safety concerns, and the impact on the existing public right-of-way. The parish council have also objected to the application. As I said, the application site relates to the Le Campton Reservoir, located to the west of Le Campton Road. The site is located just inside the Chantenham Administrative Boundary, but outside of Chantenham's principal urban area. The site is also located within the Cotswolds AOMB and within the green belt. The image on the left is the block plan as existing, and just a Google Earth image there to show you in relation to Le Campton Road. Just got some site photographs here. Obviously, I think everybody bar one was on, or a couple was on site, so we did walk across, but some photos there for any that weren't there. So the left-hand line is a view of the access track leading from Le Campton Road towards the reservoir. And the one on the right is a view from within the site looking southwest. Some further photos there. So the one on the left, the view from within the site looking north, and the one on the right is within the site looking east. A couple more there. So a view from within the site looking northwest towards the adjacent houses, and the same from a different angle on the right. Now, so you've got the existing and proposed block plans. So access to the site is by an existing access point from the Le Campton Road, and it's the same access that will serve the two new dwellings already approved on the site to the east of the application site. The two approved dwellings are shown red on the block plans there, so you can see in relation to the application site. So I put this together this afternoon to just try and make people understand the kind of constraints around the site. So the blue area there, the blue hatched area is the extent of the principal urban area. So the application site abuts it, but is outside of it. The yellow line is the administrative boundary. So the land to the south of that line is Cheeksbury. To the north on the other side is Cheltenham. And it's just to note that the land that is shown green there is Cheeksbury, but it's AOMB and Greenbelt. The application site also being both. I hope that makes sense. It's hard to pull together. So we've just got a proposed site layout plan there, so as you can see the proposed dwelling and its associated external amenity space is all located within the existing walls of the reservoir structure. Proposed floor plan. It's got the proposed elevations here. All right, we did today receive two CGI images, which are quite helpful to visualize. So that's the existing there. So you can see the stone wall there is where the application site starts. So the lighter green is the lid of the existing reservoir structure. And then the proposed is here. So the key planning matters for consideration today are the principle of development, site layout and design, impact on neighboring amenity, impact on AOMB, impact on the Greenbelt, impact on public rights of way, ecology, parking and highway safety, sustainability, impact on the Beechwood special area of conservation, and biodiversity net gain. So officers duly acknowledge that the site's location would be contrary to JCS policy SD10 due to its position outside of the principle urban area. However, as Chantalum cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11 of the MPPF is applicable. As such, there is a presumption in favor of development and permission should be granted, unless there's a clear reason for refusing the development with regards to the impact on the protected areas, which in this case is the AOMB and the Greenbelt, or any adverse impacts of permitting the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Benefits of the scheme in this instance being the redevelopment of the site and the addition of a further dwelling to Chantalum's housing stock. In this instance, with regards to the impact of the development on the AOMB and the Greenbelt, the application is considered to be compliant with policy and therefore no clear reason for refusing the development has been identified. In addition, no adverse impacts that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme have been identified. As such, the tilted balance in favor of sustainable development is engaged and therefore officer recommendation is to permit the application subject to conditions. Just to note, at the time of writing the officer report, the section 106 agreement with respect to the financial contribution to the Beechwood Special Area Conservation hadn't been finalized, but it has now been done. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much indeed. I said we have three speakers, and the first one is Gary Dickens. If you would come forward as the agent on behalf of the applicant and address the committee, you have five minutes. And I will remind you 30 seconds towards the end of your discourse. Good evening, Chairman, members. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak on behalf of the applicants. Firstly, we would like to thank officers for their proactive and constructive discussions throughout the course of this process. The proposal before you tonight is one that has been two years in the making and has involved positive pre-application engagement with both the council's planning officers and the county council in their role as the highway's authority. The feedback received from these discussions has been taken on board and seen the number of proposed dwellings reduced to just one and the removal of any above ground structures. A bespoke design approach has been taken due to the non-conventional nature of the site and its sensitive planning constraints. The proposal will involve the removal of the existing lid of the tank and the erection of the dwelling within the substantial existing concrete structure. No part of the dwelling will be above the height of the reservoir lid, and the existing concrete base will be used for the foundations, thereby alleviating the need for any excavation. Due to the underground nature of the structure, there is a need for openings to be made to allow for natural light and air circulation, but these have been restricted primarily to the east and west elevations and through the clever use of internal courtyards, which also assist with this. The points raised by the architects panel have been addressed in the addendum, which was sent to you prior to this meeting. In Greenbelt terms, the redevelopment of previously developed land that does not have any greater impact on the openness of the Greenbelt is a form of development that is actively supported in both national and local planning policy. As the submitted drawings demonstrate, the proposal will not have any greater impact on the Greenbelt, as the dwelling will sit within the existing structure and be no higher than the existing height of the reservoir. The underground nature of the scheme ensures that the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB is unaffected, as illustrated within the submission documents and the illustrative image that has been provided today. Although the application was submitted prior to any mandatory requirement for biodiversity net gain, the applicants have still sought to provide for this through native hedgerow planting, a wildflower green roof, tree planting, and a pond. The scheme also seeks to limit its environmental impact with the use of both heat pumps and solar panels, whilst the thick concrete walls and green roof will provide the high levels of insulation. It is estimated that there are 1,000 tons of embodied carbon within the reservoir structure, and it is hugely beneficial, therefore, to work with this structure rather than removing this as waste. The majority of the development will be constructed from sustainable timber, such as the framework, partitions, and roof structures. The Highways Authority have considered the application and ultimately raised no objection. We understand that the official accident data accessible through the crash map website identifies that there have only been four minor accidents occurring within the vicinity of the junction of Blackhampton Hill and Old Bath Road this century, and none of these have been recorded in the last eight years. The site access point achieves the required visibility distances, and the additional trips resulting from a change in use from its lawful storage and distribution use to a residential use would not be severe. The planning officer's committee report comprehensively covers the matters raised and sets out why there is no reason for planning permission to be refused and why the scheme complies with both local and national planning policy. In short, and speaking objectively, this is a high quality scheme incorporating renewable technology that makes good use of a brownfield site within a sustainable location and has been deliberately designed to minimize any potential impact on the Green Belt and the AONB. I therefore ask you to grant planning permission as recommended. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're within your allotted time span. Can I now ask Mr. Phil Bennett as a parish counsellor to step forward and give your five minutes? And I, again, will remind you 30 seconds before the end. Good evening, chairman, members. Le Campton, with Warden Hill's planning committee, discussed this issue back in April, and we unanimously rejected it. We submitted our agreed response at the parish council objects to this application and request it to be called in. Development is on Green Belt AONB and valued landscape. It is outside the principal urban area. The council are also concerned about the safety of vehicular access and the protection of industrial archaeology of the site along the footpath. We object on a matter of principle to residential development on the site of the disused reservoir on the following grounds. The entire dwelling and associated facilities lie outside the principal urban area and are located wholly within the green belt and area of outstanding natural beauty, which stretches to the south and west. The site is highly visible from rising land viewed from public footpaths towards the south and west. In addition, the PC has concerns over poor visibility provided onto the public highway on Le Campton Hill. I would like to pick up on a point that we have just heard from the agent about the road safety issues and that this century there have been very few accidents. That is as the junction with Old Bath Road stands at the moment. Putting an entry and egresser driveway will substantially alter, in my opinion and the council's opinion, the safety of that whole junction. Finally, to quote the MPPF section 13, protecting green belt land, and I quote, Government's aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land open. The essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Well within your time. Councillor Horwood, you know the procedure, five minutes, and I will remind you. There we go. I'm the Councillor for Le Campton and also a member of the Cotswold AONB board, now called Cotswold National Landscape, although not speaking on their behalf. They haven't entered any detailed comment because this application is for a single dwelling, so falls below their threshold for detailed response. Can I start by agreeing this is a really exciting design? I've heard it compared to a Bond villain lair, which may be a bit unfair. But honestly, I would rather have that than a boring box. I also appreciate the efforts made to adapt to both the unusual setting and the landscape, particularly through the use of green roofs. But I do have some serious concerns. Firstly, can I draw attention to the comments of the household at 8 Le Campton Rise and their concerns about windows that they say would impact their privacy? So please do consider that. The other two public objections and my main concern, as well as the PC's, is about road safety. I made the same objection to permission for the two neighbouring new properties. All three would have access onto the very steep and dangerous junction of Le Campton Hill, Le Campton Road, Old Bath Road, Undercliff Terrace, and Undercliff Avenue, which all come together at this point. Sports bikes and cars descend the hill very fast, and there have been multiple accidents here, even if the county don't know about them. You can see multiple instances on YouTube, actually, especially in icy weather when it's particularly treacherous. I think there's a real risk of someone being killed or injured, either in collision with yet more cars exiting this development or because they've been distracted or surprised by them. 7 Trent used Banksman to guide their vehicles safely out of this site, and this application would add three more car parking spaces for daily use. I realise the highway's authorities lack of objection puts you in an awkward position, but this is ultimately your decision and your responsibility. My final concerns about permission being granted for new build on a site that looks like a green field in AONB, in Greenbelt, and outside of any planned housing allocation, and surrounded by green space on all sides, and adjacent to an historically important and lovely wooded public right-of-way footpath which cars will have to cross if this permission is granted. The officer's report at Para 6.8 acknowledges this development conflicts with housing policy SD10. I respectfully submit that it's too dismissive of policy on Greenbelt and AONB as well. Greenbelt policy SD5 is designed to protect open countryside between urban areas and requires you to protect the openness of the landscape. In my view, it's questionable whether replacing what really looks like a field with a house can possibly retain open character. Policy SD7 says all development proposals in or within the AONB must conserve and enhance its landscape, not damage it and then mitigate it, and they must be consistent with the Cotswolds AONB management plan. That management plan prioritises not just the natural beauty of the Cotswolds, but also qualities like tranquility, and it emphasises the special quality of the escarpment that rises immediately above this site. Policy CE1.2 of the management plan says proposals that are likely to impact on or create change in the landscape of the landscape should have regard to the scenic quality of the location and its setting and ensure that views including those into and out of the national landscape are conserved and enhanced. Policy CE4.1 says proposals that are likely to impact on the tranquility of the landscape should have regard to this tranquility by seeking to avoid, and where avoiding is not possible, minimise noise pollution and other oral and visual disturbance. And make no mistake, while the application design is low lying, the sharply rising hillside means that this dwelling and its light cars, swimming pool, outside dining areas and any amplified media or music would all be visible and audible from most of that hillside. I note the architects panel also voiced this concern and have withheld their approval. This also means that I think the case officer's report is spot on when it emphasises the real importance of conditioning and I hope you'll actively draw attention to these conditions in your deliberations so that there's no question of this development morphing into something else at a later date once change of use has been agreed. If you're minding to permit, do please emphasise the importance of conditions three, four, five, 11 and 12 to the landscape and I'd suggest adding conditions relating to sound and light as well so that you are clearly acting in accordance with the AONB management plan to which you're committed by policy SD7 and I hope you'll also draw attention to the very strict informatives about the public rights of way designed to protect the footpath which marks the line of the original Letcampton Tramway and is a popular, much loved recreational route for local people. Thank you very much for your time, Chair.
• Thank you, Caslow Hallward, bang on time. Right, it's open to members for questions. Councillor Wheeler.
• Yes, I have two questions, one regarding the footpath. As we saw it, it runs just outside the site. Now the only impact is the crossing over of that path and is it a footpath because I didn't realise it was a tramway so is it a public footpath or is it a boat? And the second question would be regarding, sorry, a boat, a byway open to all traffic. Beg your pardon. And my second question was regarding mostly the north side of the site, the reservoir wall which at the moment is, I understand that's going to be excavated a bit to expose some of that. What will the finish of that wall be? Because I believe there's three windows in there and a door. So obviously some of that's going to be exposed. So what would the finish of that wall be?
• So yes, it's a formally adopted public right of way. It's designated on the--
• On what sense?
• In what sense, what do you mean?
• Is it a public footpath or a byway open to all traffic or a restricted byway?
• I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. I can get it up online and read you the description of it if that's essential for you to know. But it is a public right of way and obviously we've consulted the public. What I would say is that the development doesn't affect it, the development itself doesn't affect it but going on to your other question, any impact as you refer to it would be the crossing of it by vehicles and pedestrians as access to the site. The same way as we walked across it to access the site at the moment and as it would for any of the services, I guess, to the site as existing. And you talked about the finish of the external wall as is, so whatever the wall finish is as existing and would be exposed, there's no proposal to finish that wall in any other material or anything like that.
• Can I just-- - Yes, I know, sorry. Having been a member of the public rights of way, if this was once a byway used by wheeled vehicle, it could be either a byway open to all traffic if it was once motor vehicles or it could be a restricted byway if it was used by, say, horse and cart in the past. And the actual size of that path, even though we saw it was very small, would make no difference, but just to explain too.
• Thank you for that clarification. Councillor Oliver.
• Thanks, Chair. Given that we approved 2-1-0-2-1-4-8 full two house approval on the same site three years ago, have there been any changes to legislation or local plans that were relevant that might affect this?
• I'd suggest that the policy context is the same as that considered then. The MPPF has been updated, but I'd suggest there was a minor that would affect this application.
• Councillor Baker.
• Just quickly, Councillor Hall would refer to lighting, and there is a condition on lighting, so I think that will be covered off by that condition. Clearly, lighting is extremely sensitive in that location, and that will be what's in our minds when we apply that condition.
• Councillor Allen.
• Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm just conscious that the development in front has been, I believe, approved, or it's been considered. I'm just wondering whether the access ways, whether the nature around that comes into the foray of that development as opposed to this development, or whether sort of the trees around the road access will be considered here as well, just conscious of highway safety.
• I think just I'm not sure what the question was entirely, but just to clarify, the access that has already been, well, the access is already there ultimately, and it serves the reservoir anyway by seven-trend vehicles. So that existing access, there's no changes to that access proposed, and that is what is approved already to serve the two consented dwellings. You would continue up that same access the way we walked to gain access to the reservoir site, which would be this dwelling.
• Apologies, sorry to interrupt. I should have been clearer. I think what I'm talking about in particular is the foliage around the road, because I know that, for example, counters of race concerns about cars not being able to see outside of the road and see the oncoming traffic when they try to leave the junction, the access. But with that nature that comes on the curbside, would that fall within the development that had been previously considered, or will it fall within this development? Because I'm conscious that the access is within this development's RLB, but I'm wondering if the nature outside of that falls within the RLB as well.
• So ultimately the access itself is approved as before, so it wouldn't be the subject of this application as such. The use of it, and the intensified use of it for another dwelling would be a consideration, but the actual suitability of the access, I would suggest, has already been dealt with and is approved. Let me just check.
• Yep. - Just as I said.
• Councilor Clark.
• I'd like to ask some questions, please. I'm a hiker, and I'm quite concerned about vehicles crossing the right-of-way. Is that something that happens often? The second thing is, if we were to approve it, could we ask highways to put some mirrors on that bend so that at least there'd be additional visibility for the cars coming in and out on the other side of the road? And the other thing is green roof, is that something that we can, could we have more detail, or is it, I assume it's enforceable. I think that's critical in this instance, that it really will be a green roof, and not left open to interpretation.
• Yes, so the use of a public right-of-way, that's not gonna be affected, and obviously users can use it as they would now. I suppose my response there is, is you quite often get public rights-of-way that end at the edge of a field. You have to cross a busy road, a not-so-busy road in the countryside, and that would just be a user, you know, a user issue that they would need to make sure that there was no traffic passing. What I would suggest is that, given the length of the access there, or the driveway, they wouldn't be coming at any speed leaving the site or coming to the site, because it's such a short stretch.
• In terms of asking highways for additional signage, it's not something that we would control through the planning process. They haven't required anything as such in their response. I think it would be quite uncommon for something like that to be required from their point of view. It's not to say that that couldn't be posed to them if this was approved by any member of public, the parish council, yourselves. So I think it's a matter outside of the planning application today. And with the green roofs, yes, we've got a condition attached that requires them to provide further details, and then also requires them to maintain it and keep it to basic.
• Thank you. Any other member, any questions? Councillor Foster.
• Thank you. I'm also asking about vegetation. I believe the gentleman said that they were going to put up hedgerow. Is there any stipulation about the landscaping that it should be native plants, which could encourage biodiversity? Or can they plant rhododendrons, or is there a restriction on the type of shrubs that are planted?
• So we've attached a condition. So there's a general landscaping layout and proposal put forward anyway, which we generally agree with. But we have put a condition on that requires them to submit a full set of details so that we can really understand the planting, the species, the number. So it's up to us at that stage to review that. We do that quite often alongside the tree officers 'cause they've got good knowledge of what works where, what grows well. So we ultimately have control on the type of planting, the species. If the scheme that comes in is not acceptable for any reason then we can negotiate that as part of the discharge of condition application process.
• No other questions. We'll go into debate. Any member? Councillor Baker.
• I just think this is a superb scheme. What better use for a previously developed site retaining all the concrete infrastructure that's there already. I just think environmentally and sustainably you could not improve upon what we've been presented with. I think the applicants and our officers have worked tirelessly to put this scheme together because it is a really, really sensitive site. But given the previous approval of those two dwellings, given the fact there are no objections from our professional highways advisors, I cannot think of any reasons for refusal including of course our land supply, our housing supply issue. So I'm fully supportive of the recommendation to permit.
• Thank you, Councillor Baker. Councillor Allen.
• I concur with Councillor Baker and with the officer's recommendation. I think it's a good site. I think in terms of all planning considerations, everything's been accounted for. I think also in terms of actually utilizing previously failed infrastructure, I think it's important that we put the reservoir to good use or else it is going to be left basically for rewilding and for nature to take over. And I think ultimately the consideration for this scheme in terms of the green roof for enhancing biodiversity as well, I think it's been well thought out. And again, just to speak for my bit in case any members are unsure.
• Thank you, Councillor Allen. Councillor Wheeler.
• Yes, I think I concur with both of the other speakers, but I did notice one of the photos that I'd not seen before actually does highlight the fact that although it's all green at the moment, looking from the north at it, it's quite obviously a rather ugly structure there at the moment, even though it is all green. Turning this into a property, I suppose my biggest objection would be that I couldn't afford to live in a place like that, but that's not an acceptable objection. I think it's a great scheme and it will make very good use of Brownfield site and albeit that it's in Greenbelt, it's hardly gonna be seen, it will be seen, but I don't think the harm is that great in that it will be something from what I, you know, we haven't seen it yet, it hasn't been built, but I believe it will be quite attractive, albeit it's a structure rather than a green field, but as a green field, looking at it from the north, it is pretty obviously a structure that's not that beautiful.
• Thank you, Councillor. Any other member wants to comment? No? In that case, I don't think there's anything for you to come back on, Ben. So we'll go to the vote then. It is proposed for acceptance, so this will be a vote either for approval or against approval or abstaining. So all those in favor, please cast your vote. That's a unanimous vote for, so it has been approved. Thank you all very much indeed. That does, apart from the report of the appeal updates, conclude the agenda. I don't have any other urgent points to raise. So the next meeting is the 18th of July, and I'll close the meeting. Thank you all.
• Excuse me, Chair, just through you. So just to record, members have noted the items of number seven, the appeal update.
• Right, yes, I did mention it, but it's for report rather than for discussion, so. Okay, close the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. . [BLANK_AUDIO]