Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

18/01238/FUL - Brickhouse Farm, Chargrove Lane, Up Hatherley, Cheltenham

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of site to provide 1 no. single storey detached dwelling including detached home office, associated access and landscaping following demolition of existing garage building in ancillary residential use (Revision of application 18/00092/FUL).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Minutes:

34.39        This application was for the redevelopment of a site to provide one no. single storey detached dwelling including detached home office, associated access and landscaping following demolition of existing garage building in ancillary residential use (revision of application 18/00092/FUL).

34.40        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to two single storey outbuildings located close to Brickhouse Farm, which was a Grade II listed farmhouse. The outbuildings were of modern construction and originally formed part of a larger farmstead prior to agricultural operations ceasing in the mid-1990s. The outbuildings had since been used for ancillary purposes in connection with Brickhouse Farm. The wider site was now mainly residential with a number of former agricultural buildings converted to dwellings. The site was located in the Green Belt with a public right of way running to the east connecting with Up Hatherley Way; it was located outside of a recognised settlement boundary and the proposal was therefore contrary to the Council’s housing policies, however the Council could not currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. The site was also located close to Cheltenham with a wide range of facilities within 2km of the site which was an acceptable cycling distance. There had been various iterations of the proposal during the application process and, although there was a concern that the revisions to the proposal now before the Committee had not been advertised, the Council’s records showed that site notices had been displayed on four occasions and had been advertised in the press on two occasions. The latest revisions as now presented were considered to be acceptable from a design perspective and the Conservation Officer was satisfied that the proposal would not harm the setting of Brickhouse Farm. The proposal would have an acceptable impact in terms of residential amenity and the Highways Officer was satisfied that the access to the site was acceptable subject to a planning condition to secure appropriate visibility splays. In terms of the Green Belt, it was considered that the proposal would represent the redevelopment of previously developed land and would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt, for similar reasons the proposal would also have an acceptable impact on the surrounding landscape. The site was located in Flood Zone 1 and was therefore at low risk of flooding, in addition it was not identified to be at risk from surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency flood maps. In terms of drainage, it was proposed that surface water would be discharged into a detention basin which would be provided to the east of the site on land within the ownership of the applicant. In turn this would discharge at a controlled rate to an existing pond to the north of the site which again was in the ownership of the applicant. Foul discharge was proposed to be via a package treatment plant with treated effluent being pumped to the existing pond. In the light of this the Council’s drainage consultant was of the view that the proposed drainage strategy was acceptable. However, given the concerns raised by residents it was considered that it would be prudent to attach a planning condition to secure a detailed surface water and foul drainage scheme prior to the commencement of development. In conclusion the Planning Officer stated that, whilst the benefits of the proposal were limited, it was considered that the harms identified did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh those benefits and therefore the recommendation was to permit the application.

34.41        The Chair invited a local resident to speak who indicated that this application was for a new house in the Green Belt to which there had been over 70 objections as well as the Parish Council. The development would be in between two listed houses. The new Planning Officer had only been appointed four weeks ago and had made a recommendation to permit the development subject to an approved scheme to address the contaminated flooding problem and compliance with the Highway visibility requirements. In respect of the contaminated flooding, the plan was to install a foul treatment pond and attenuation pond directly in the Green Belt five metres from a public footpath which was used every day. This foul effluent and storm water would then run to an existing polluted pond that was fed by the septic tank from the farmhouse which was installed in the 18th century and it had never been changed, there were no outfalls, it was contaminated water and every year it flooded the surrounding fields which became a swamp in the summer. The Council’s Flood Officer had previously stated that he was unable to support this scheme, however, another officer from the County Council was now dealing with this application and he stated that as long as Environmental Health were happy he did not have any problem with the proposals. The resident indicated that he had contacted Environmental Health at the Council and the officer had stated he would not support any proposals which created flooding issues. The resident then referred to the supporting evidence provided to the Committee in respect of the highway visibility requirements which did not comply with the planning requirements which stated that visibility must achieve 23 metres to the north when it was actually 5.6 metres and 27 metres to the south when it was actually 10.6 metres. The consultants survey showed visibility running through the centre of a 3 foot wide tree. A traffic survey was carried out on a Tuesday between the hours of 10am and 4pm outside of the peak rush hour period so it was not a true reflection of the problem. The survey documented that over 250 people walked Chargrove Lane daily, there were no footpaths, the speed limit was 40mph, when you exit to the right it is a blind bend and it is necessary to pull the window down to listen for traffic, every time there is a risk which is compounded by electric vehicles that make very little noise. There had been two accidents over the last three years caused by speeding vehicles not able to see what was coming. In order to achieve the visibility, trees, hedging and fencing would have to be removed which was in the ownership of a third party. The resident maintained that the existing neighbours had not been consulted on the current revisions as the Green Notice had not been displayed. The proposals would have a detrimental effect on their access which was not suitable for another house; the refuse bins had to be pulled to a pick up point as the refuse lorry could not access, a fire engine could not access and the post van had to reverse in. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on existing neighbours who had not been properly consulted. He referred to the photographic evidence that he had submitted which supported the points he was making and stated that before planning permission was granted it was essential that changes to the drainage and access be made and that any access for this new property should be through Brickhouse Farm. In respect of the home office this would allow the site to become a workplace which would be surrounded by four houses, two of which were listed and in the Green Belt. This proposal was simply not right and should not be permitted.

34.42        The Agent for the application then addressed the Committee and explained that this site had an extensive planning history; throughout the application process numerous third parties had commented on these proposals although it was noted that some of those comments were from individuals who lived further afield from the site, many within different parts of Gloucestershire altogether. It was unclear as to why this application had generated such interest given that it was a fundamentally acceptable form of development. The applicant and his family were members of the local community; they enjoyed living in the area and were passionate about providing a development which not only suited their needs but enhanced the unique character and beauty of the locality. Moreover, they were entirely in agreement with the sentiments of the public in terms of protecting the area from inappropriate development and only wished to make an improvement to the appearance of the site and its setting. In light of the fact that the Officer recommendation was one of permit the Agent did not wish to take up to much time but did wish to reiterate a number of important points: the Highway Officers at the County Council had no objection to the amended application; the Conservation Officer had confirmed support for the application as it would better preserve the setting of Brickhouse Farm; the proposals would make use of a brownfield site in line with planning policy and would contribute to the housing supply; ecological enhancements would be made through the provision of bird and bat boxes to the building exterior and the use of low UV lights; such proposals to be carried out in line with the recommendations of the ecological report as required by draft condition 14; in respect of drainage, a revised drainage strategy had been provided as well as additional details from the Applicant which addressed the comments of the Council’s Drainage Officer and a drainage-related condition was being recommended to ensure that the Council retained full control over this matter in the wider public interest; the current buildings on site were dilapidated, unsightly and detracted from the beauty of the area; the volume of the replacement built form proposed was 30% smaller than the existing buildings; the dwelling’s design ensured that it was sympathetic to the site and its surroundings and the size, scale, materials and design were all appropriate for the site. The Agent stated his view that the removal of the existing unattractive buildings, which detracted from the setting of the historic farmstead, and replacement with a sensitively designed dwelling would significantly enhance and preserve the site. He maintained that the proposal represented appropriate development in the Green Belt and in this regard, whilst the sensitive nature of the site was understood, the applicant had maximised opportunities to ensure that the development proposals would result in improvements to the site.

34.43        A Member asked for confirmation that County Highways were completely happy with the access. He also referred to the detail in relation to the drainage plans as currently the drainage ended up at a stagnant pond so he questioned whether there were any outlets to that pond or whether it could be made to run into a watercourse. The Planning Officer stated that, in terms of the access, a plan had been provided showing the visibility splays in both directions and with regard to the tree to the right of the access, the pictures had been forwarded to the Highways Officer who had confirmed that the visibility splays could still be achieved in highway land; rather than take the visibility splay to the near side of the road it could be taken to the middle as it was a single track and that provided the visibility splay as needed therefore the Highways Officer was happy with the proposed access. In terms of the drainage as was explained in the Officer presentation, the surface water was supposed to go into an attenuation basin and then off into an existing pond. It should go into the pond at the same rate as the existing surface run off so there should not be any change to the water going to the pond it would just be detained in the basin first. In terms of the foul there had been correspondence with the Environment Agency who had confirmed that because it did not have an outlet it was classed as an offline system and therefore it did not need a permit from them. It did overtop but the Planning Officer had been advised that when this happened there were ditches that then connected into a surrounding network. The LLFA had looked at the proposal and was satisfied that it was a workable solution; Building Control had also suggested that it was a workable strategy but the details needed to be finalised and that was the reason for the condition. A Member quoted from the Council’s Corporate Enforcement Policy in relation to the responsibilities of riparian owners particularly relating to the clearance of ditches which then allowed water to flow freely which he felt was very relevant to the stagnant pond and he asked whether the drainage condition would address this issue. The Planning Officer stated that the details would address this and would be submitted to the LLFA to ensure it was happy and that no other permits were required. Also, importantly the scheme would need to meet Building Control requirements and the condition would include the need for future details of the management of the drainage system going forward. On the basis of this information, the Member proposed that the application be permitted subject to the conditions outlined in the Officer report including access and drainage. Another Member suggested that perhaps a delegated permit may be more appropriate to allow all the issues on the drainage to be sorted before any development took place but the Planning Officer advised that the condition would ensure the drainage scheme would need to be approved prior to the commencement of the development. On the basis of this assurance, the Member seconded the motion. A further debate on the details of the drainage proposals took place with some Members expressing concerns about the stagnant pond, odour etc. and the Planning Officer indicated that Building Control would need to be satisfied that the scheme was workable and if the current proposals did not ensure this and address the issues raised then the scheme  would need to be amended as part of the condition. Discussion also took place about the parameters of development in the Green Belt and when it was and was not acceptable and the Planning Officer clarified that, in respect of Green Belt policy, it did allow for the replacement of buildings which included dwellings where it involved the redevelopment of a brownfield site and where the impact on the Green Belt was not greater. He indicated that the existing buildings on this site, whilst originally agricultural, were now domestic so technically this was a brownfield site, and the dwelling was 30% smaller than the buildings to be replaced. Therefore, in Green Belt terms, it was not inappropriate development as it did not have a greater impact. Subsequently, the motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

Supporting documents: