Agenda and minutes

Councillors Colin Hay and Seacome.

14/01166/FUL 12 Everest Road

(i)                  Councillor Coleman – personal and prejudicial – he is the applicant and will leave the Chamber for this debate.  Attended Planning View on Tuesday but left the bus before the start of any discussion of this application, was not on site when Members visited, and rejoined the bus when the visit to this site was complete. 

(ii)                Councillor McKinlay – personal but not prejudicial – knows the applicant.*

* Councillor Barnes noted that he and all Liberal Democrat Members would feel they have the same personal interest in this application.

14/01270/CONDIT Unit 3, Maida Vale Business Centre

(i)                  Councillor Sudbury – personal and prejudicial – used to live adjacent to the site, in the house now occupied by the main objector and public speaker tonight.  Will speak in objection to the scheme and then leave the Chamber. 

(ii)                Councillor Chard – personal but not prejudicial – is a customer of Cotswold Linen Care, the applicant.

There were none.

(i)                  Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th July 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

(ii)                Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 31^st July 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

MJC introduced the application as above.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Baker, in view of the proposed alterations to the property and its prominence in the road.  The recommendation is to permit. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Stephen Clarke, neighbour, in objection

Lives at No 22 The Avenue, and is also speaking on behalf of the residents at No 20 and other neighbours concerned about the gradual erosion of the character of The Avenue.  Cheltenham’s sense of place is created by its avenues of fine houses set amongst trees and gardens, with a rhythm and balance giving a sense of confidence and pride.  The Avenue is one such, a mid-twentieth century planned estate, and entitled to the same protection given to 19^th century estates, for future generations to enjoy.  Has two objections to the proposal:  the first is the poor design of the ground floor east elevation replacing the front door, disrespectful of its prominent central position in The Avenue.  The Planning Officer called it ‘idiosyncratic’ which is usually a euphemism.  The applicant says it could be screened with a hedge, but it is not a question of style as much as one of good design which planning polices aspire to. The design should be worthy of its position and reflect its surroundings.  The second objection is to the two-storey extension on the west side adjacent to No. 20.  The character, rhythm and balance of these detached houses must be taken into consideration, and in this part of The Avenue, houses are separated from their boundaries at second storey level by at least 3 metres.  This proposal leaves no room to screen the wall and interrupts the rhythm and balance of separation.  The recent extension at No 33 on the other corner was a smaller and better design, and Cheltenham’s Local Plan refers to the town’s spaciousness, derived from spaces at the front, back and sides of buildings.  The residents of No 20 are distressed at the prospect of a featureless two-storey brick wall shading their terrace, and negotiation with the planning officer made this worse – the wall now proposed is about a third of the depth of their back garden.  There has been no negotiation or compromise here, and the planning officer does not appear to have paid due regard to the impact of the development, including the ground floor study window overlooking the garden of No 20. 

Mr Laurence Sperring, applicant, in support

Purchased 21 The Avenue earlier this year with the intention of making a home for his family in the parish where his wife grew up.  Sought pre-app advice on the draft plans from the planning office; the indication was that plans would be approved.  21 The Avenue was built in 1972 and has been little  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

CS introduced the application as above, and said there have been four letters of objection.  The recommendation is to permit subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application, which is at Committee at the request of Councillor Regan, due to concerns that it may be potentially overbearing on neighbouring property, impact on drainage, and cause loss of light.  The recommendation is to approve.

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

None. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

2 abstentions

PERMIT

CS explained that this garage building is used in conjunction with 81A New Barn Lane, and this is a retrospective planning application to allow the first floor to be used as holiday accommodation as described above.  There have been two representations from neighbours, objecting to the potential for increased noise and disturbance; the parish council has also objected on the grounds of inappropriate development.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

GB:  checked that Members have read the blue update.

Public Speaking:

Mr Harrison, agent, in support

Considers this application being brought to Committee an unusual situation – the officer recommends that permission be granted, but the application is here because the Parish Council has objected to the ‘inappropriate’ development, without giving any specific reason; in his opinion, not an appropriate way to object.   If it were not for this objection, the application would have been decided under delegated powers.  The greenbelt boundary in this part of New Barn Lane ebbs and flows, and the openness of the greenbelt will not be affected by this proposal – the building already has planning permission, and using it as a holiday let doesn’t affect the features of the site.  Openness is not an issue, and the proposal falls in with guidance in the Local Plan and the NPPF.  On practical issues, the potential disturbance of an occasional vehicle will be insignificant; there will be no additional visual impact on the amenity of neighbours, and no alterations to the building itself.  The windows will allow daylight into the space and are appropriate.  The proposed use is sustainable - the site is close to the Park and Ride, which is intended for visitors and in line with policy, and will boost the local economy, with most visitors attending race meetings at Cheltenham Racecourse and using the Park and Ride to go to town.  The property will be let for 42 weeks a year, and a condition sets out that it cannot be let to any one occupant for more than one month in any 12-month period.  The proposal is modest and will have no impact on the neighbour.

Member debate:

MS:  the report is a little on the light side.  Members who were on Planning Committee when the original application to build a garage was approved in 2005 – PT, BF, GB, MS – will remember a lengthy discussion about amenity issues arising from putting up a building in this location, and the concerns of the neighbour.  After the application was approved, the neighbour went to the Ombudsman, claiming that his amenity had suffered as a result of this application, and the Ombudsman agreed.  It cost CBC £10k in compensation for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Councillor Coleman left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

CS introduced this application to extend a semi-detached property in Everest Road.  There have been no objections from neighbours, and it is at Committee because the applicant is Councillor Coleman.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support - unanimous

PERMIT

CS introduced the application, which has been made by Connect Streets, a community scheme set up to improve Bath Road.  Officers have been involved with the scheme.  There have been four letters of support, and the officer recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

JF:  this will brighten up Bath Road – it would be wonderful if it could be extended into the town centre, if shop owners get together it could really make a difference.

AC:  agrees with JF – this is a brilliant idea.  Would love to see it extended, and if it doesn’t work out, the boxes can always be painted dark green again.  We should give it a bash.

BF:  the boxes will look good for a while, but is thinking about the Charlie Chaplin artwork on the railway bridge.  The boxes are green for a reason – we’re not supposed to notice them – but when painted they will stand out like a sore thumb.  This is OK when they’re newly painted but in five years’ time?

CN:  agrees with JF and AC.  The scheme is excellent, innovative and well thought through, and the applicants have worked closely with local communities.  Believes the artwork will be painted with anti-graffiti paint to protect it.  Agrees it would be nice to extend the idea across town.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

2 abstentions

PERMIT

MJC introduced this change of use application.  The house is currently occupied by four tenants.  Planning permission would not be needed to increase this to six.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Wheeler who is concerned about the intensity of use and additional cars in the area.  The officer recommendation is to permit

GB:  checked that Members have read the blue update.

Public Speaking:

[See below]

Member debate:

BF:  if eight people live in this house, all going to work in different directions with cars, bikes, pushbikes etc, there is going to be very little space outside for parking.  These are average-sized terraced houses and with eight adults living together, it’s going to be very crowded. The rooms are small, the sitting room is very small.  Tenants are likely to be students, working men, professionals, civil servants – the size of the rooms is very small to accommodate eight people.  Realises this is not necessarily something that should be considered from a planning point of view, but has safety concerns about the cramped space.

CN:  also has concerns, which were not apparent on reading the report but became so on planning view.  Agrees with BF’s comments.  The report seems to indicate that five people will share one bathroom – is this realistic, especially if they are all working people needing to leave the house at a similar time?  Understands this type of issue is addressed in the HMO side of things after planning applications have been granted, but with no sinks in the bedrooms, there is going to be a lot of pressure on the bathrooms.  The applicants have built two rooms on top of the house and then applied for planning permission.  Why did they not apply for planning permission first?  Comments from Environmental Health officers have been included in the report, but does the proposal deal adequately with the EH officer’s concerns?  Also notes that the report states that the road is wide.  There were not many parked cars on planning view, but imagines that parking is probably quite a problem at night.  The property is also close to a sharp bend, giving rise to safety issues.  There are four people living in the house now and this application seeks to double the number of occupants.

AC:  shares BF’s concerns about safety, particularly in relation to the fire escape.  Raised this question on planning view, and how easily people could get from the top floor to the ground floor. Realises this is part of the HMO process, but MJC said he would look at this and come back to Members.  Remains concerned about safety. 

JF:  there are currently four parking spaces on the site – feels this is adequate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

MP introduced the application as above.  It is a revised application, the previous scheme being refused on design grounds.  The current proposal is exactly the same as the dwelling built to the rear of 17 Greenhills Road.  It is at Planning Committee due to objection from Parish Council as over-development of the site, and also at the request of Councillors Baker and Smith, due to residents’ concerns.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Borrie, neighbour, in objection

The previous application was rejected as its scale, form and massing would constitute over development, fail to complement or respect the neighbouring development, and fail to be subservient to the existing dwelling.  None of these issues have been addressed with this new application.  The NPPF discourages inappropriate development of residential gardens, which this is.  Cheltenham’s SPD on garden land developments gives clear guidance as to what is or isn’t acceptable, stating that single tandem development will not normally be accepted, and a rear garden development should be of a reduced scale compared to the frontage houses – yet the proposed house has 2,400 sq feet, comparable to existing houses on that side of Greenhills Road.  Local Plan policy CP7 requires development to complement and respect neighbouring development and the character of the locality, but the proposed house will result in significant loss of green space, totally out of character with the street scene and at odds with the urban grain.  It will have a significant effect on neighbouring properties, leading the loss of privacy, a compromise on security due to the new driveway providing access to rear gardens, and visual impact on a number of surrounding homes.  If every property in the road undertook tandem development, it would totally change the character of the neighbourhood and quality of life and amenities of residents.  There would be no large gardens, less green space, and more flood risk.  Permission has been granted for a similar development at No 17 Greenhills Road, despite it not meeting planning guidelines, but there is not requirement to grant permission for this more intrusive one, with only one parking space and 3 metres closer to the northern boundary.  It seems odd that No 16 should be allowed to build at the extreme north end of its property because the owners of 7/8 The Avenue have not built in their back gardens.  

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones, in support

This application follows the Committee’s decision to refuse planning permission for a dwelling on the site in June, on the grounds that the contemporary design did not complement or respect the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

MP introduced this application to vary two conditions on this business unit which has been used as a commercial laundry for a number of years.  The applicant is seeking to increase the hours of operation.  The application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, who is concerned about loss of amenity.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to revised conditions.

Public Speaking:

Ms Wiseman, neighbour, in objection

With every fibre of her body, urges Members to refuse this application.  This is a mixed residential and business area.  Nothing has changed since the site was developed in 2000 in terms of residents requiring less amenity, or since 2002 when this unit’s working hours were increased by 11%.  If anything, amenity should be more valued now than it was 14 years ago, with the pace of life as it is.  Neighbours simply want to keep things as they are – no increase in noise due to increased hours; peace and quiet on summers’ evenings, Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays.  Is not a complainer without good reason.  Members on Planning View did not experience the full noise from the unit on their site visit, as it would not be in the unit’s best interest to show that.  From time to time, all the unit occupiers are on their premises outside their contractual hours  - this is challenged by residents but maybe overlooked if there is no noise – but with CLC, it is not about giving an inch and taking a mile – they just take, take, take.  They worked on Easter weekend and the 26^th May Bank Holiday, as well as regular Easters, Christmases and New Years – even the Queen’s Jubilee.  Has video evidence to prove it which was offered to CBC but not accepted.  Other people look forward to Bank Holidays, but she braces herself, knowing that CLC will steal her peace and relaxation – it is very stressful and frustrating.  Has exhausted every avenue to reason with CLC and get the council to enforce the current terms.  Nothing happens to resolve this, only an application for more working hours.  It is exhausting to have to repeatedly confront this Groundhog Day situation. There are eight objections, five of which refer to lack of enforcement; has submitted complaints about this recently.  The 2002 conditions have not been respected by CLC or enforced by the council when residents have raised concerns over the last 12 years.  If the scenario is that the two parties do not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

There were none.