Agenda and minutes

Councillors Clucas and Councillor Hay.

14/01522/FUL 72 Moorend Park Road

i.   Councillor Chard - will speak in support of the application then withdraw from the Chamber for the debate.

14/01436/FUL 86 Cirencester Road

i.   Councillor McCloskey – was not present at the July meeting when the previous application at this site was considered, so submitted a written objection to the proposal.  Has taken legal advice and been advised not to take part in the debate due to pre-determination.  Will withdraw from the Chamber for the debate.

ii. Councillor Baker – will speak in objection to the proposal as ward councillor then withdraw from the Chamber for the debate due to pre-determination.

3. Declarations of independent site visits

i.   Councillor McCloskey – was not on Planning View but has visited all the sites apart from Cleeve, Church Court Cottages.

ii. Councillor Baker – was not on Planning View, but has independently visited 86 Cirencester Road, 7 St Michael’s Close, and Diamond Jubilee, Old Bath Road.

Members present on Planning View:  Councillors Barnes, Chard, Fletcher, Seacome, Stennett and Thornton.

Apologies:  Councillors Babbage, Clucas, Hay, McCloskey and Sudbury.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th September 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

GB introduced Duncan McCallum of DPDS, who is present to answer Members’ questions – these should be addressed to the officer in the first instance.  He said that Mark Power of GCC highways team cannot be present at the meeting, but as highways issues were dealt with at the last meeting, officers do not consider it essential that a county highways officer is present tonight.

Councillor McCloskey left the Chamber at this point for the duration of the debate.

LW introduced the application as above, and provided some background to the site and proposals.  It is currently used for a hand car-wash service, having previously been a car sales workshop and petrol filling station.  The revised application being considered today is similar to the scheme refused in July.  Refusal reasons were: 

(1)        impact on the viability of Croft Road shops and potential loss of facilities, contrary to policy RT7   and NPPF paragraph 70;

(2)        the design, appearance and impact on the character of the area, and removal of trees along        Newcourt Road with insufficient replacement, contrary to policy CP7 and NPPF paragraph 58; 

(3)        the increase in noise and disturbance and harm to the amenity of local residents, due to the         increase in traffic, delivery vehicles, car parking, and the ATM, contrary to policy CP4 and        NPPF paragraph 58. 

The applicant has addressed these refusal reasons, following discussion with officers.  Various options have come forward, culminating in the current application, which officers consider to be much improved – a good design, in keeping with local character, and providing additional shopping facilities.  The previous refusal has focussed the applicant’s mind in thinking about these issues, and was therefore a helpful decision in improving the scheme.  Landscaping, layout, footprint and design are all considered acceptable by officers; the Civic Society and Architects Panel have approved the scheme, there are no objections from Environmental Health or Highways, subject to relevant conditions.  

The application has been thoroughly scrutinised, with regard to the retail impact, noise levels, transport issues, and landscaping.  Following the July meeting, improvements have been made to the scheme, including a review of the retail issues, and all previous refusal reasons addressed in a satisfactory manner.  The recommendation is to permit.

GB checked that all Members had read the updates.

Public Speaking:

Mr Russell Grimshaw, neighbour, in objection

Other people have commented on the terrible impact this development would have on the quality of life of residents and the independent businesses, including the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

MJC introduced the application described above, telling Members that the proposed house will be accessed via the existing access of 51 Leckhampton Road.   Parking will be to the front of the existing villa.  The development area is shaded on the drawing, and is adjacent to Whitley Court.  The application is at Planning Committee following concerns in respect of amenity issues from the Architects Panel.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

AC:  thanks goodness for Planning View – there is a lot of space here, which might not be evident from the drawings.  Has grounds for wondering if the design of the building is as good as it could be – personally doesn’t like it – but there is no doubt that there’s enough space for another dwelling here.  Access is good, and there is parking for the new dwelling on the site, not in front of the villa as stated by MJC.  Despite his doubts about the building, in his view this house would be an addition to local amenity.

BF:  unlike AC, likes the design, and agrees that there is plenty of space.  Notes the Trees Officer’s comments about the building being too close to the yew tree at No. 51 – has been told that this has been addressed, but where?

MJC, in response:

-            apologises to AC for confusion re parking in front of the villa;

-            to BF, the yew tree is sizeable  and the Trees Officer had concerns.  A tree survey was subsequently carried out and the tree can be retained.  Tree protection details are necessary and included in the conditions on the earlier purple update, setting out the root protection area, method of installation and so on;

-            has spoken to the Trees Officer who is satisfied with the arboricultural report

HM:  one of the local residents has expressed concern about the narrowing of the drive to Whitley Court.  Is this the case and, if so, will it still be suitable for refuse collection and emergency vehicles?

MJC, in response:

-            the driveway will not be narrowed – it will remain as it is, and can take another dwelling.  The Highways Authority is happy for a third dwelling to use this access.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

0 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

CS described the proposal as above, which is at Planning Committee due to objections from the Parish Council.  The officer recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Ms Helen Lucas, neighbour, in objection

Moved to the house next door 16 months ago.  Does not object to anyone wanting to extend their home, but is concerned about the scale of the proposed rear extension and the impact it will have on her living accommodation.  The applicant has reduced the height of the extension by 20cm, but it still remains 9ft high, 12ft long, and just 23 inches from her window.  It will overshadow the kitchen/diner, the only habitable room on the ground floor, where she spends a lot of time – and also the patio area.  Being on the south side, it will block out daylight and sunlight from midday until dusk, casting a shadow from October to April andblocking late afternoon sun in the summer.  A light test has been carried out, but this is not conclusive – it was not done on site, and the proposed extension will definitely make a difference.  Does not want to prevent the extension being built, but to make it acceptable.  A neighbouring rear extension is 2m high, has glass panels above and a sloping roof – this fits well and would be acceptable.  A comparison has been made by the residents at No 11 to the extension at No 10, but the extensions are different – this is not a like-for-like comparison.  The other extension is seven courses of brick lower, with a glass sloping roof.  Similarly, the extension at No 12 is lower, shorter and narrower, and is on the north side of the neighbour concerned.  Letters of objection outweigh those in support.  Regarding the garage conversion and insertion of a window on the ground floor, the terraces are not uniform but they are designed in pairs, and the addition of a window will affect the symmetry - No 7 will stand out and look inconsistent with the rest of the Close.  There have been many objections to this, citing the restrictive covenant which is intended to protect the Close from unreasonable building.

Mrs Louise Hooker, applicant, in support

Has lived in St Michael’s Close since 2007.  The current living space has become inadequate for her family’s needs and, not wanting to move and noting that four other owners have extended their properties without any issues, decided to explore extending her property and converting the garage.  Consulted an architect, who sought an early opinion from the planning department; spoke with adjoining neighbours who confirmed they had no objection, understood why the extension was needed, and were happy with the proposals.  Did not consult the management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

EP described the application as above, saying Members have already considered and refused two schemes for two houses on this site, one a flat-roofed design, and the other with asymmetrically pitched roofs, both contemporary in style.  Officers found both the previous schemes acceptable, but in line with comments at Committee, this design is a more traditional building form and the recommendation is to permit.  It is at Committee due to objection from the Architects’ Panel.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

HM:   considers this the best application for this site so far.  The design fits better with Nos. 284 and 286 London Road, and the property nearest the Ryeworth Road boundary has been moved further into the site.  It is an excellent scheme.

KS:  this is a case of third time lucky – a good result for the appearance of the area.  The other designs were inappropriate for the area.  If this application is approved, it is clearly because the design is good.  Is pleased that the applicant has listened to Planning Committee, and is happy to support it.

BF:  unlike the others, considers the design to be bland and poor; liked the first design best.  Realises this is a conservation area, but that doesn’t mean that anything new has to look like everything else in the conservation area – this is 2014 not 1930.  The design takes bland to a new high – where is a decent, modern 2014 design?  It is in the conservation area, so should have a high standard of design as well as materials. 

PT:  it might be bland but it fits in with its neighbours.  A modern design in the conservation area may be OK if it was a small development, tucked away and out of sight.  Local people like this scheme.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

CS introduced this application, which is situation in the Prestbury Conservation Area and also in the greenbelt.  The application originally included the construction of boundary walls along the edge of the site, but these have subsequently been removed from the application as they are 1.8m high and do not require planning permission.  Following re-consultation, the application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Stennett, and due to a Parish Council objection.  Officers are satisfied that the proposal will preserve the character of the conservation area, will not affect the openness of the greenbelt, and the recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

MS:  it is unfortunate that the erection of a 1.8m wall around this tiny garden comes under permitted development rights, but it does.  However, the proposed bin store in front of the wall is right in front of the neighbour’s window.  The neighbour will have no choice but to look at the roof of the bin store – this is very anti-social, particularly as there is no real reason to have a bin store in this position.  There is a small bin store further along, which causes no offence to anyone.  If it has to be here, it should be below the level of the wall.  Will move to refuse on CP4.

PT:  what is the exact distance from the back of the bin store to the window mentioned by MS?  Will support the move to refuse this application.

CS, in response:

-            the impact of the proposed roof will be felt by the residents of Bredon, but the light test has been carried out and comfortably passed.  There is therefore no reason to ask the applicant to reduce the height of the bin store.

-            the fall-back position here is that without the roof, the structure would be permitted development and not as aesthetically pleasing;

-            the distance from the windows of Bredon to the bin store is 9.4m.

PB:  is the light test a nationally accepted standard or one of our own tests?  Will it be reviewed in the local plan going forward?

AC:  appreciates that we have no choice about the wall, although he doesn’t like it, but the bin store is ugly and not a nice view for residents to look out at.  Notes that the applicant lives in Norway, and the cottage is used for short lets.  For the people living there permanently, it will be dreadful.  Will vote against this application.

CS, in response:

-            the light test is referred to in policy CP4 – it is a detailed document, designed to assess the impact of a proposal on light for windows around it.  If it is carried out and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

EP introduced the application, which is recommended for refusal due to officers’ concerns about the proposals for the front of the dwelling being overly scaled and prominent. It is at committee at the request of Councillor Chard.

Public Speaking:

Mr Williams, applicant, in support

Is the applicant and owner of 72 Moorend Park Road, and wants to add an extra bedroom and en suite bathroom to the property to make it more functional without spoiling its charm.  Showed his designs to the neighbours with whom he has co-resided for many years - they were all happy with them, and their support is evident from their letters.  Planning officers were not happy with the size and mass; therefore withdrew his application, and re-consulted his architect with officers’ concerns about the dormer windows and re-submitted his application.  It was amended to include obscure glass to the rear, a reduction in the size of the dormer, a reduction in height, a hipped roof rather than gable, and a sunken balcony area.  The application is at committee for the sake of 400mm – not 700mm as stated – which is what the officers want to reduce the width of the window by, and 1800mm narrower than the windows below, the largest of which is 2.4m and the window proposed is 2.2m.  A dormer window in an identical building in the road is exactly 2m wide internally, and looks identical to what he is asking for, as well as being in the conservation area where his house is not.  The full height of the windows to the front of the property is hidden by the sunken balcony. To sum up, the property isn’t in a conservation area, the difference in size is 400mm not 700mm, and all the other officer’s wishes have been complied with.  It comes down to personal opinion; the architect considers the design architecturally pleasing and sympathetic with the dwelling and neighbourhood, and hopefully Members will agree.  The proposal has the support of people in the neighbourhood, and will allow his family to enjoy a light and airy building.

Councillor Chard, in support

The officer’s report states on Page 320 that the property is outside the conservation area, yet the documents referred to further down the page are to do with being in the conservation area.  Does not see the logic of this.  In his view, the case comes down to opinion – you like it or you don’t.  Notes there are no objections from neighbours - three have written in support and like the proposal; the applicant likes it – only the officers don’t.  Much has been made of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

MJC introduced the application as above, at committee at the request of Councillor Baker to consider the impact of the COU at this prominent site.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

PB:  when he asked for this application to go to committee, it was not because of concerns about the building being used for a sandwich business, but in terms of the principle of a change of use to A1 retail use and what that might mean. Was concerned about what use we may be granting but is happy with the use that has been proposed.  Cox’s Meadow is very popular with dog walkers and children, and this building is very prominent.  A sandwich business here will be great, the proposed hours of operation are fine, and understands that the business cannot be changed to a hot food take-away without coming back for planning permission. 

DS:  supports the proposal but is concerned about the potential build-up of traffic.  The lay-by is used by people visiting Cox’s Meadow.  Is thinking about the lay-by by the Post Office Depot which gets very busy and causes problems.  There is no obvious passing pedestrian traffic here, so not a lot of trade from them so is concerned that the new business might attract too many cars.

MB:  has no issue with the change of use, but would like to raise the issue of PB’s comments in the Echo earlier today and whether these cause any problems regarding pre-determination.

CL, in response:

-            this has already been brought to her attention, and she feels that PB’s comments did not reveal  any pre-determination of this matter.

KS:  considers this application a good thing and hopes it will be welcomed, but is also concerned about parking.  Were residents of nearby houses consulted?  Most people living there are tenants, and the owners may never go past the site to see the site notices.

GB:  to Members with concerns about traffic, would say there is no need to worry.  The site is so close to the roundabout that it would be impossible to park illegally.  If the lay-by is full, drivers will have to go and find somewhere else to park.

MJC, in response:

-            has spoken to the case officer and to the County Council regarding parking, having anticipated     that questions would arise at committee;

-            the lay-by has space for five or six cars, but in view of the nature of the site and the proposed use, officers do not anticipate it will attract a significant numbers of additional visitors – it is not likely to be a destination - and illegal parking is therefore not anticipated.  Cox’s Meadow is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.