Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

35.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors Babbage, Fletcher and Colin Hay.

 

36.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

14/00505/FUL Avenue Lodge, Chargrove Lane

Councillor Mason – is a member of Up Hatherley Parish Council, but is not a member of the development group and has had no input into any comments made regarding the proposal at Avenue Lodge.  Has been advised by the Borough Solicitor that there is no conflict of interest here.

 

37.

Declarations of Independent Site Visits

Minutes:

-          Councillor Baker has visited 21 The Avenue

-          Councillor Sudbury was not on Planning View, but has visited both 21 The Avenue and Avenue Lodge on previous Planning Views when applications at those sites were being considered

-          Councillor McCloskey was not on Planning View, but visited Avenue Lodge when the application was previously at committee.

 

 

Members present on Planning View:  Councillors Barnes, Seacome, Stennett, Thornton, Lillywhite, Mason and Nelson.

 

38.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

 

39.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 142 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 21st August 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

 

40.

Planning/Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent/Advertisement Applications and Tree-related applications

41.

14/00505/FUL Avenue Lodge pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

14/00505/FUL

Location:

Avenue Lodge, Chargrove Lane, Up Hatherley

Proposal:

Garden Landscaping

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

11

Update Report:

Additional representation

 

MJC introduced the application, which is back at Committee following deferral at the May meeting to allow for additional information to be presented to Members, essentially a hydrologist’s report which would allow Members to fully understand how the pond functions and the potential impact of filling it in.  Reminded Members this is an application for garden landscaping, and needs planning permission because infilling part of the pond is involved.  The application was originally brought to Committee because of Parish Council objections.  The recommendation remains to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Bacon, neighbour, in objection

Members will be aware of letters between the officer and the applicant, and that the officer’s sound advice was ignored – the consultants engaged did not seek the views from any neighbouring properties.  The applicant states that the hydrologist’s report provides irrefutable information to prove that infilling 50% of the pond won’t exacerbate the flood situation in the area, but is it irrefutable?  The answer is emphatically no.  There is no evidence of practical fieldwork at the pond site.  At paragraph 1.7, the report makes clear that it has examined the situation from a theoretical point of view, and it has provided no real reason to go away from this approach.  At paragraph 3.7, it is clear that practical work at the site has not been undertaken – the report states that core sampling would have been useful yet was not done, when it easily could have been.   There are a number of contradictions in the report, where the hydrologist appears to be sitting on the fence.  For example, paragraph 3.3 rules out springs, though also states that the geology of the site does not rule springs out but make them ‘unlikely’; Page 1 of the report talks about infilling approximately 40% of the pond, while paragraph 5.2 refers to infilling half the existing pond area; this is a very significant difference in a pond with the capacity to hold 1.8 million litres.  There are no recommendations on how the reduction can be achieved, how the impact can be effectively monitored, or the long-term effect of the work.  The officer has laid out certain stipulations but the whole issue remains haunted with risk.  Remains opposed to the application.

 

 

Mr Limbrick, applicant, in support

Reminds Members that the report states that there is no reason why this application should not be permitted.  Its progress has been marred by uninformed speculation – comments which should be set aside.  With all the facts at their disposal, Members should permit the application and allow the applicant to improve his garden without further delay.

 

Councillor Whyborn, local ward member

Like all councillors, wants to be fair to all his constituents – has been approached by the applicant and by objectors concerning this proposal. The Committee should ignore emotional comments and objections which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

42.

14/01003/FUL 21 The Avenue pdf icon PDF 14 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

14/01003/FUL

Location:

21 The Avenue, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Proposed two storey side extension, single storey side and rear extensions

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

7

Update Report:

Officer comments; amended conditions; additional representation

 

EP introduced the application as above, which was deferred at the August meeting to allow for amendments to the single-storey side extension to be made – this was the only issue for consideration.  The applicant has now removed the double gable and replaced it with a single pitch roof.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Richardson, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Represents the interests of the residents of No 20, who object to this proposal because of its impact on the character of the area and on their property.  The proposal is not in keeping with SPD guidance, which states that the space between houses contributes to the character of the neighbourhood and highlights that a proposal which is too large for the site which may result in loss of light for neighbours, also stating that an extension shouldn’t dominate or detract from the original building.  The proposal will reduce the space between Nos 20 and 21 at second storey level, compounded because the proposal will extend beyond No 20 to the rear.  It is excessive, overbearing and will have a seriously detrimental impact on the residential amenity of No 20.  In addition, the proposed windows will look directly into the garden and back door of No 20, representing an unacceptable intrusion and loss of privacy. All those who have responded have objected to the application:  No 22 refers to the overbearing nature of the proposal, invading the privacy of the neighbouring property, reducing their sunlight, and removing the separation between the houses.  Does not consider the proposal has an acceptable relationship to the neighbouring property, as stated in the officer report, and notes that the officer goes on to confirm that the proposal will be overbearing and result in loss of direct sunlight to No 20.  The Building Research Establishment guidelines, on which the SPD is based, state that overshadowing of gardens and patios is a valid reason to refuse an application; the applicant hasn’t undertaken a BRE assessment, and the proposal should be refused, due to the overbearing nature of the two-storey extension and the resultant loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property.  The SPD is only guidance and the decision rests on the facts of the case.  As No 20 is over 20 years old, it has a legal Right to Light, which would be breached if this application is approved.  The application should be refused, and any future applications should exclude two-storey extensions to the western side.

 

 

 

Mr Sperring, applicant, in support

Purchased 21 The Avenue earlier this year with the intention of making a home for his young family in the parish where he and his wife were married and where his wife grew up.  The house was built in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

43.

14/01374/FUL 1 Folly Lane pdf icon PDF 166 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

14/01374/FUL

Location:

1 Folly Lane, Cheltenham

Proposal:

External works to existing dwelling frontages at numbers 1-13 and 15-52 Folly Lane and 121 St Paul's Road to include installation of bay windows, replacement windows, front garden and boundary wall alterations (varies across properties); installation of new concrete ball features, public art, tree planting and re-surfacing works at junction of Folly Lane and St Paul's Road

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

Officer comments; amendment to Condition 6

 

MJC told Members that this application will build on work which has already taken place in St Paul’s at Hudson and Manser Streets and Crabtree Place, where the frontages were remodelled, with bay windows and porches added.  This proposal will continue in the same vane, to the junction with St Paul’s Road.  The officer recommendation is for approval, and the application is at Committee because the land is owned by the council.

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

Member debate:

PT:  has a quick question – the condition on the blue update seems to say that the houses will have to have open-plan fronts – is that right?  The new houses in the area have railings and bins outside the front, which look horrible. 

 

KS:  will the next phase of this work be at Margaret Road?  Why has it not been included?

 

HM:   The scheme includes 18 concrete balls which are totally the wrong idea.  The original application had planters; there were objections to these, due to the amount of maintenance required, and it was suggested these be replaced with groups of trees to soften the landscape.  Concrete balls have the opposite effect, and will invite graffiti.

 

PB:  used to represent this area 20 years ago, and AM has also been its councillor, so welcomes the significant improvements now being implemented.  If trees are introduced, these should be semi-mature specimens – young saplings will struggle.  Would also like to know if the hardstanding is permeable?

 

BF:  agrees with PB that this is a great improvement to St Paul’s as part of its regeneration scheme.  To HM, pointed out that the concrete balls have a rough surface which will not be suitable for graffiti, but agrees that semi-mature trees would be a good idea if they could be introduced.  This proposal will be a great improvement to St Paul’s – it is good to see it coming to fruition. 

 

AM:  as mentioned by PB, has knowledge of this area, and welcomes the proposal which will be a big improvement.  Suggests semi-mature trees would improve the arboreal attrition rate. 

 

MJC, in response:

-          to PT, explained that the condition is not suggesting an open-plan layout, but trying to prevent incremental changes to the scene, and ensure that the integrity of the proposal is not diluted with the addition of trellises, walls being replaced with railings etc, which would undo the good work the scheme seeks to achieve;

-          to KS, doesn’t know  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

44.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.