Agenda and minutes

There were none.

Councillor Wheeler sent apologies. There were no substitutes.  

Members declared the following independent site visits:

3 Pittville Crescent Lane: Councillors Fisher and Andrews.

66 Copt Elm Road: Councillors Bamford, Nelson, McCloskey, Payne and Oliver

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2023 were approved as a true record and signed accordingly.

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the report as set out in the papers, for a revised scheme following grant of planning permission earlier this year. It was at committee at the request of Councillor Tooke, and was part-retrospective, the most notable change being that the proposal was now brick-faced rather than rendered, to match the existing dwelling and the single storey extension reduced in size. The recommendation is to grant, subject to conditions.

The neighbour, in objection, made the following points:

-       the Town and Country Planning Act includes a statutory requirement to publicly display a planning notice, as happens in other boroughs, yet in Cheltenham is only discretionary. Letters about the original application were only sent to a select group of neighbours, as a result of which she was unaware of the proposals, and delayed over Christmas, giving little time to comment.  Ward councillors were told that it was too late to request a committee decision;

-       neighbours had no prior knowledge of the plans, despite the applicant living nearby for a couple of years;

-       the property was built on a garden plot, and permitted development rights were removed, to prevent over-development and additional windows without express permission;

-       the two-storey side extension and front entrance are very dominant; these were amended during the original application and permission was granted;

-       a rendered finish was specified in the first application, and red brick in the second, which makes the property entirely out-of-character with its location.  There is a mix of styles in the area, and it would be possible, with considerately-designed amendments, to improve a building which currently has a negative impact on its surroundings;

-       the part-retrospective application was submitted, with no site notice, for the red-brick finish; this is now a fait-accompli, and the result is an outlook on an industrial-looking dark, concrete-roofed building, rather than a rendered one which would at least reflect a little light;

-       regarding privacy, a proposed clear-glazed first-floor window will overlook her entire garden, living room, first-floor bedroom windows and rear porch;

-       the proposal has resulted in an overbearing and dark appearance,  impacting on light in her house and garden, and the approved rooflight overlooks her bedroom despite assurances from the planning officer that it would not.

The applicant made the following points:

-       the revised application arose from neighbours’ concerns about loss of daylight as a result of the side extension – it has been reduced in size and a window removed;

-       the two large existing windows in the side extension are being replaced with windows which don’t give rise to overlooking the neighbour;

-       the window is needed in the fourth bedroom is required for light, ventilation and fire safety purposes; a bathroom window further down will not cause any privacy issues at all;

-       a similar style of new-build dwellings are being permitted in the area, and Pittville is dotted with a plethora of different styles and materials;

-       they bought the home for its red  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the item, which proposed the removal of three trees in a conservation area. He explained that the trees are very close together, and generally in poor condition due to competing for water and light. With poor amenity value, life expectancy of no more than 10 years, and potential risk from dropping dead wood, he considered that two of the trees were not worthy of protection with a TPO and the other was borderline.  He added that the resident is committed to planting a strawberry tree in their place, and transplanting a cedar from elsewhere in the garden to mitigate their loss, although this cannot be enforced.    

The resident was invited to speak to support her case, and confirmed the comments from the trees officer, stating that an earlier application to remove five trees was withdrawn following discussion with him.  She said that none of the trees had been able to grow and thrive properly, due to their close proximity, and if any one of the trees were to be retained, it would be poorly shaped as a result.  One of the sycamores frequently dropped small branches on the road.  She proposed felling the trees, replacing them at the corner of the plot with an Atlas cedar, transplanted from elsewhere in the garden and currently about 2m tall.  It would be an attractive tree, visible from Lyefield Road and providing year-round screening, and she had also planted other new trees along the boundary in recent years.  There have been no objections from neighbours or the trees officer.

In response to questions from Members, the trees officer confirmed that:

-       if the council raises no objection to the felling of the trees, it cannot enforce new planting, although officers can give informal advice about suitable species etc;

-       regarding the proposal to relocated the existing Atlas cedar, he isn’t convinced that this will be successful at this stage of the tree’s maturity, although it is unlikely to give rise to problems with the cedar in Pittville Park which is considerably old.  All trees cause problems eventually, but if this one does thrive – which is questionable - it will be many years before it does so;

-       if the two declining trees were removed, the remaining sycamore would get more water and light, but not significantly so.

In debate, Members made the following points:

-       there is a very attractive poplar tree in the garden which will be more visible and benefit from what is being proposed.  This is a good reason to support the application;

-       no objection should be raised as the resident is being very straightforward in her objectives.  Moving the cedar will be challenging – she will need to take advice on the best time to do it, and it will need a lot of water to keep it going;

-       the strawberry tree will be a nice addition;

-       this is an iconic corner of Charlton Kings, seen from every angle, but the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

For information

Information on appeals received, pending and decided had been circulated.

The Head of Planning told Members that the appeal against the last year’s Committee decision to refuse 350 houses at Land off Shurdington Road, was originally set for the written representations procedure, whereby reports are exchanged between the local authority and applicant.  These have been submitted, but the Inspector has come back requesting a hearing, which will take place in July.

He also flagged the decision at The Hayloft in The Reddings, which the Inspector has allowed.  It was refused at Committee due to concern about the impact on neighbours arising from the creation of flats, but the Inspector felt that the level of activity generated by the coming and going of occupants of a family would not be substantially different in scale to that of occupants of the flats, and that the refusal was not justified.

He noted that there several appeals for BT hubs had been dismissed, which was a good outcome.

Date of next meeting Thursday 18^th May.

On behalf of all Members of Planning Committee, the Chair thanked the Head of Planning, who is leaving CBC.  He said his guidance, support, expertise and professionalism were much appreciated, and wished his well with his future career.