Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllrs. Clark and Oliver.

Cllr. Pineger was not present for 5a, and Cllr. Fifield left after 5d.

Cllr. McCloskey declared a non-prejudicial interest in the Charlton House item as a modest shareholder in Spirex Sarco.

Cllr. Payne would withdraw from the Finchcroft Lane item after speaking on it.

Cllr. Baker would withdraw from the Leckhampton Road item after speaking on it.

Cllr. Baker had visited 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f and 5g.

Cllr. Payne had visited all of them except 5f and 6.

Cllr. McCloskey had visited all of them except 5g and 6.

Cllr. Pinegar had visited 5a, b, c, h and 6

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th January 2022.

The minutes of the 20^th January meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer, presented the report, which related to a proposed storage unit on Burrows Field. It had been deferred by the committee at the previous meeting on 20^th January so that officers could explore with the applicant whether the proposed building could be reduced in size or provide a justification for the size.

Speaking in objection to the application, Mr Russell Peek thanked the committee for revisiting the plans, and acknowledged that the football club had made real improvements to their application. There was a clear need for storage for playing equipment and he understood the benefits of investment for the community, but speaking on behalf of neighbours he was sure that there were better potential sites around the periphery of Burrows Field with less impact on local residents.

Speaking in support of the application as a trustee of Leckhampton Rovers Football Club, Mr Mark Beaney explained how the revised plan had addressed objections by lowering the building’s height by 20% and the overall volume by a third. This brought it down to the minimum height requirement and also moved it away from the boundary. They had done all they could to accommodate neighbours’ concerns, and wanted to enable as many people as possible to enjoy a healthy lifestyle.

Speaking in support of the application as Ward Member, Cllr. Nelson noted that Burrows Field was home to the second largest football club in Gloucestershire. The field was currently undergoing a major upgrade, much of the funding for which had come from the club. The club needed space to store sports equipment, the sole use of which would be on the field. The applicant had reviewed their requirements and reduced the size to the minimum necessary, and lowered the perimeter fence to reduce the impact on neighbours. In doing so, they had addressed all objections and fully justified the need for this space.

Speaking in support of the application, Cllr. Horwood reiterated that the applicant had made significant modifications to their proposal to meet the concerns raised at the last meeting, especially with regard to the height and volume. Burrows Field had been a dedicated sports field since the 1930s, and maintenance was a key part of raising it to FA standards. The unit would be for clear practical sporting use, with real value to the club and wider community, and would not be particularly noticeable considering the size of the site.

There being no Member questions, the Chair moved to the Member debate.

One Member noted that they were pleased to see that their concerns about the height at the last meeting had been addressed.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

FOR: 8

AGAINST: 0

ABSTAIN: 0

PERMIT

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer presented the report, which related to the erection of two dwellings on land east of Leckhampton Reservoir. It was at the committee at the request of Cllr. Horwood due to concerns about access and highway safety, and an objection from the Parish Council.

Speaking in support of the application on behalf of SF Planning Limited, Mrs Becky Brown highlighted that the site had planning permission in principle for three dwellings, with this application comprising two of them. She noted the concerns raised in the letters of objection but did not feel there was a justified planning reason to refuse it. It was a high quality design in keeping with the local style, and while some trees had been removed they were largely overhanging foliage. Considering the need for housing supply in the town, the committee should approve the application without delay.

Speaking in objection to the application as Ward Member, Cllr. Horwood highlighted that the traffic data used to justify the recommendation to permit only covered a 30-minute period, whereas his own traffic data covered several months and clearly showed motorists consistently exceeding the speed limit. The trees removed were not overhanging foliage, but rather the area had been levelled – he suggested that the committee should require them to be replanted should it permit the application. The application was in a dangerous area with repeated accidents, including one since it was submitted. The stopping distance for a cyclist would far exceed the size of the site, with potentially deadly consequences.

Speaking in objection to the application as Ward Member, Cllr. Nelson noted that it was a stretch of road long identified as a speeding hotspot, by the police and parish council, as cars descended at high speed or accelerated up the hill. The application would make this worse, especially since descending motorists’ interest would be drawn to the junctions on their right, so they might not even notice an exit on their left. The data referred to by Cllr. Horwood had been gathered using GCC-accredicted equipment in place for up to 3 months at a time, showing that 49% of drivers were exceeding the speed limit at the Old Bath Road junction. The road saw as many as 270 vehicles speeding per hour at peak times. For vehicles going down the hill, the data showed that 35% of drivers were speeding. She was disappointed by the Highways view that the application should be permitted, based on a 30-minute survey with a handheld speed gun. It would be irresponsible to permit this application considering the dangerous location, and access to the site must be via an alternative, safer route.

Speaking in objection to the application as a parish councillor, Mr Adrian Mears agreed that the site entrance would be extremely dangerous. A standard medium-sized car like a Focus would have to poke out by nearly a metre in order for the driver to see oncoming traffic, leading to a high risk of collisions. The trees lining the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer presented the report, which related to alterations and extensions of a previously approved scheme. It was before the committee at the request of Cllr. Horwood due to the design, scale and impact on the conservation area, and an objection from the Parish Council.

The applicant, Mr Phillip Marsh, explained that he had purchased his house in 2018 and spent more than £300,000 painstakingly restoring it to be a home for him and his young family. The application had been altered following objections and feedback from the council, and the garage would no longer be built on the boundary with Richmond House. He noted that planning permission for a two-storey development had been granted to his immediate neighbours, so to refuse this application would be a double standard.

Speaking in objection to the application as Ward Member, Cllr. Nelson suggested that the design, scale and impact on conservation area were adequate reasons to refuse. The flat-roofed extension would clash with the high ceiling style in the area, spoil the symmetry of surroundings and detract from the character of the original building.

Speaking in objection to the application as Ward Member, Cllr. Horwood suggested that it raised questions about what was appropriate in a conservation area. The previous extension and the matching one next door were in keeping with the red brick, pitched roof style and were in proportion with other houses. This extension was mismatched, and differed greatly from the previously approved application. It was significantly higher in order to make it visible from the main road, and would be out of keeping with the rest of the street. In his view, Members needed to reflect on the sensitivity of conservation area and the precedent permitting the application would set.

Member questions

One Member asked why the extension was so high at the back. The Planning Officer responded that the applicant had increased the height to keep the internal floor level the same.

One Member asked whether the extension next door referred to by the applicant had been built yet. The Planning Officer responded that it had only been approved recently and had not been built yet.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

FOR: 8

AGAINST: 1

ABSTAIN: 0

PERMIT

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer presented the report, which related to a proposed side and rear extension. It was at committee at the request of Cllr. Willingham over concerns about the impact on neighbour amenity and possible use as a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

Speaking in objection to the application as a neighbour, Mrs Georgina Herbert suggested that it was a case of overdevelopment since the property had already been extended twice. It was currently run as a four bedroom HMO housing five tenants, with the sitting room and dining rooms let as bedrooms. The proposal before Members would potentially increase the occupancy to six bedrooms, which was not acceptable for reasons of both sanitation (since there was only one small shower and toilet for all residents) and impact on neighbour amenity such as parking on an already overcrowded street. The current site provides substantial light to neighbouring properties, and the application would reduce this, causing particular harm in the winter. Increased overshadowing and reduced privacy would have a significant negative impact on residents, who have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

Speaking in objection to the application as Ward Member, Cllr. Willingham echoed his constituent’s concerns about overdevelopment and highlighted a number of technical concerns. The plans showed four double bedrooms, each containing a double bed, which suggested that the dwelling was intended to accommodate eight people. The sanitation provision was clearly inadequate for eight people, and would represent unsanitary living conditions. He asked the committee to give due regard to the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations of 2006, in respect of toilet provision for HMOs. In terms of policy reasons for refusal, this was covered by NPPF 92.

Member questions

One Member asked whether there were grounds for refusal without appeal. The Chair responded that this was for the committee to decide.

One Member acknowledged that there was no minimum room size standard, but felt that it ought to be refused nonetheless. Could it be refused due to the lack of sanitation? The Interim Head of Planning responded that it could not, since these matters were up to the licensing regime. A HMO licence had a minimum space standard, but this was not a matter for this committee. There were also national space standards, but they only applied to new dwellings and not to extensions.

Member debate

One Member suggested it was unacceptable in the 21^st century to be granting permission for properties where people would live like this. They needed more robust enforcement powers, and ought to refuse it on the basis of human rights. Proper accommodation must be provided for people who could not buy a house, but this was not good enough. The Chair noted that this was not an avenue open to the committee.

One Member described it as a shocking application which they would have been embarrassed to submit. They suggested refusal on SD14, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5d

Planning application documents

Listed building consent documents

The Planning Officer presented the report, which related to the demolition of a 20^th-century wing and the erection of a replacement extension to an office building. It was before the committee at the request of Cllr. McCloskey, due to the level of local interest and objections to the scheme.

Speaking in objection to the application as a local resident, Mr Mark Smith outlined six key concerns with the summary report. The increase in glazing due to the modern design of the extension would have a more significant impact on privacy than the report acknowledged. The Architects Panel had not commented on the application, so there were no formal comments to say that it was a good design, while incorrect information had been submitted and analysed by the Highways Officer. The question of height was open to bias, as it was more of a stylistic point, while inaccurate information had been provided about the top floor plant room. Finally, the objections raised by residents had not been fully taken into account, with one particular representation being excluded from the supplementary information. He suggested that with this in mind, it would be irrational to proceed with the application.

Speaking in support of the application representing Spirex Sarco, Mr Nathan McLoughlin emphasised that they were committed to delivering an outstanding building linked to the council’s drive towards carbon neutrality. The current structure was not able to deliver this, and the application aimed at changing this. The objections had been taken into account where possible. He was happy that the officer had balanced social and environmental needs against the heritage impact.

Speaking in objection to the application as Ward Member, Cllr. Boyes sought to outline the wider policy context. The cornerstone of heritage legislation and of NPPF was heritage preservation in a manner appropriate to their significance. The proposed works as submitted did not comply with this, as they would not sustain the listed building and its setting. The initial heritage report submitted by the applicant suggested that any extension would appear subordinate to the main building, but this would not be the case, with a higher roof line by more than six metres in some places. The architect’s illustration did not reflect its size, while the planned extension was overly bulky and insufficiently subservient to the existing building. Instead, it needed to complement and respect neighbouring buildings without compromising architectural integrity, while paying attention to character and historical context. This application failed to comply with these principles or take the topology of the area into account. She recognised Spirex Sarco’s value as an employer and that the building was past its best, but believed that the application was not suitable.

Member questions

One Member asked whether Heritage England had commented, and whether they were asked to. The Interim Head of Planning responded that there was no requirement to consult them on this type of application, only on Grade 1 or particularly large sites. If they had been consulted, they would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5e

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer presented the report, which related to the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two storey side extension to include internal works and replacement windows. It had been brought before the committee following an objection from the parish council due to a loss of privacy to properties at the rear.

Speaking in objection to the application as a neighbour, Mr Rob Edmondson highlighted the impact on privacy due to the additional windows directly above his property. The application covered an area less than 20 metres away from his bungalow, meaning there would be a significant impact on evening sunlight. It should be refused on grounds of overdevelopment and harm to neighbours.

One Member noted that the application did not look subservient at all from the back, and was a fairly solid wall of brick. They emphasised with the public speaker’s concern that it would constitute overdevelopment.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

FOR: 5

AGAINST: 3

ABSTAIN: 0

PERMIT

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer presented the report, which related to the demolition of a single storey dwelling and the erection of a two storey dwelling. It was at committee at the request of Cllr. Payne due to the concerns raised by neighbours.

Speaking in objection to the application on behalf of around 20 neighbours, Mr Stuart Mason cited the loss of visual amenity and natural light that would be caused by an overbearing large building. The application would be an overdevelopment of a bungalow in a sensitive location between rows of gardens and in close proximity to all neighbours. The original planning permission only allowed a single-storey dwelling as it was adjacent to nine neighbouring properties. The neighbours currently received a good amount of sunlight and enjoyed privacy in their homes thanks to their gardens not being overlooked. Increasing the height by a storey and adding double balconies and additional windows would impact on their quality of life, due to loss of privacy and sunlight.

Speaking in objection to the application, Cllr. Payne noted that residents had been concerned by both the original application which was approved and this new one for demolition and rebuilding. The bungalow was currently barely visible and had negligible impact on views, but a two-storey dwelling would change this. The demolition would result in noise and airborne dust, along with the loss of privacy due to the patio doors on the upper floor. These would be set back, creating two small balconies with direct views over private spaces in Finchcroft Court and the properties on Finchcroft Lane. It was hard to quantify the impact of overshadowing as it depended on the angle of the sun, but he had used software to map this and found a significant projected impact on both the longest and shortest days of the year. This marked loss of amenity would be contrary to Cheltenham Plan SD1.

Cllr. Payne left the Council Chamber for the remainder of the item.

Member questions

One Member asked which of the surrounding properties were two storeys tall. The Planning Officer responded that most of them were, as well as a block of flats on Finchcroft Court which was three storeys high.

One Member asked whether it was an exact replica of what was previously approved. The Planning Officer confirmed that it was.

Member debate

One Member wondered what possible grounds for refusal there could be if the committee had already approved an identical plan. They sympathised with the public speaker’s concerns but did not feel that the permission already given could be revoked.

One Member noted their concerns about the overlooking balconies.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

FOR: 7

AGAINST: 0

ABSTAIN: 0

PERMIT

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer presented the report, which related to internal alterations to the upper ground floor reception area and corridor. It was before the committee due to the council owning the building in question.

There being no questions or comments, the Chair moved to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

FOR: 8

AGAINST: 0

ABSTAIN: 0

PERMIT

Planning application documents

The Assistant Trees Officer presented the report, which related to the proposed removal of two stone pines, and was before the committee since the applicant was an employee of Cheltenham Borough Homes (CBH).

Speaking in support of the application, Cllr. Baker emphasised the importance of mature trees to biodiversity, which was a key part of the council’s climate goals. Replanted trees would take time to contribute to this.

Cllr. Baker left the Council Chamber for the remainder of the item.

Member questions

One Member asked how the trees came to the committee’s attention when they did not have a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on them. The Assistant Trees Officer responded that works relating to trees in a conservation area were automatically brought to the council’s attention. The committee needed to decide within six weeks whether to allow the planned work.

One Member asked whether the silver birch between the two stone pines was covered by the report. The Trees Officer responded that it was not under consideration, although there was no guarantee it would survive the loss of its neighbouring trees.

Member debate

One Member noted that despite not being very visible from the street, they were very visible from neighbouring houses, and so public amenity was a concern.

Chris Chavasse, Senior Trees Officer added that the stone pine was an unusual species, and it was possibly not appropriate to have two such large trees in a relatively small garden. One Member agreed that while they were always reluctant to lose trees, these ones were too big for the garden they were in.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to the vote on the officer recommendation to raise no objection.

FOR: 5

AGAINST: 0

ABSTAIN: 2

NO OBJECTION

To be noted for information

There were none.

One Member suggested that in the future, applications relating to trees could be placed earlier on the agenda so that tree officers did not have to wait around for the whole meeting.

The Chairman noted that this was Andy Robbins’ last Planning meeting, and thanked him for his work in the role of Interim Head of Planning.