Agenda and minutes

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

82.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor McCloskey.

 

83.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

There were none.

 

84.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Fisher – was not on Planning View but has visited Pittville Campus and The Royal Oak.

 

Councillor Walklett – has visited Pittville Campus several times in the last few days.

 

Councillor Lillywhite – viewed 27 Arle Road independently, as missed it during Planning View.

 

85.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

 

86.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 23 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18th December 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction:

 

Page 1:  2.  Declaration of Interest:  14/01276/OUT Land off Stone Crescent:  Councillor Babbage – personal only – plays team football rugby at King George V Playing Field, adjacent to the site.

 

87.

Planning/Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent/Advertisement Applications, Applications for Lawful Development Certificate and Tree related applications

88.

14/01928/FUL Pittville Campus, Albert Road pdf icon PDF 296 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

14/01928/FUL

Location:

Pittville Campus, Albert Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of a student village incorporating 603 new-build student bedrooms, the refurbishment of the existing media centre (which will include a reception/security desk, a gym, retail facilities, multi-faith area, refectory and bar, quiet study area, laundrette, ancillary office space), and the provision of a mixed use games area.  In addition, the proposal involves the demolition of existing teaching facilities, 23 existing rooms and the retention and refurbishment of 191 existing student rooms.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

153

Update Report:

Officer comments; letter to Members from GFirst LEP; additional representations

 

LW introduced the application as above, for a student village comprising 794 student bedrooms in seven new accommodation blocks, with on-site ancillary facilities and support services, and demolition of all existing buildings other than the Media Centre and all but one of the existing halls of residence. The proposal was subject to pre-app discussion, but officers felt more could have been made of this stage of negotiations.  They feel the application was made too early, particularly as Officers and the Architects Panel have significant reservations regarding design, impact on local amenity, the number of students proposed on site and their management, and weaknesses in the draft Transport Statement and Travel Plan documents.  Officers were keen to continue pre-app discussion, but the University submitted its application in October, due to deadlines imposed on it by the funding bid for the project.

 

CBC and Highways officers have spent a great deal of time since then prioritising the application to progress it to a point where Officers felt they could support it, but there are still significant concerns re design and amenity, as well as outstanding highway issues. 

 

The University has recently put forward an economic argument in support of its application, identifying its direct and indirect benefits to the local and regional economy, emphasising the importance of the proposed additional accommodation for the continuing success of the University in an increasingly competitive market.  They also highlight the potential for future investment and improvements to existing teaching facilities which would be funded largely by the capital receipt released as a result of the proposed development.  In addition, the University has identified the timescale problems and uncertainties moving forward which are associated with the funding package for the scheme, and for these reasons, considers that the economic argument should outweigh all other material considerations when determining this application.

 

Officers are aware of the importance of the University to the local economy and of increasing student numbers, but believe careful consideration must be given to the weight attached to the economic argument.  For perspective, in an addendum to its application, the University states that current forecasts do not anticipate any financial cuts and expect modest growth in student numbers. 

 

The Officer report identifies shortcomings in the proposed development in detail:  lack of quality and robustness in architectural design, potential harm to neighbouring amenity, and outstanding highway/transport issues.  Strategies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

89.

14/01468/FUL The Royal Oak, Prestbury pdf icon PDF 57 KB

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

14/01468/FUL and 14/01468/LBC

Location:

The Royal Oak, 43 The Burgage, Prestbury

Proposal:

Erection of front entrance porch, replacement and enlargement of window to rear elevation, demolition of some internal walls, formation of kitchen and installation of extraction system and extension over proposed kitchen.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit / Grant

Committee Decision:

Permit / Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

Officer Introduction:

MC described the application as above It is at Planning Committee because the Parish Council objects to the porch as  inappropriate and obtrusive, but following some amendments, it is supported by the Conservation Officer, and therefore comes with a recommendation to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

 

 

Member debate:

PT:  understood that the Parish Council had withdrawn its objection to the porch.

 

AC:  is in favour of the application overall, but cannot see the point of the porch.  It will detract from the signage.  Is surprised the Conservation Officer supports it, and remains dubious about that part of the scheme.

 

BF:  is also amazed by the porch.  Notes that the Parish Council has objected, yet there is an email of support from Councillor Payne included in the report – is this written as ward councillor, member of the public, or Chair of the Parish Council?  Doesn’t agree with the reasons for the porch.  This is the oldest building in The Burgage, Grade II listed, and not designed to have a porch.  It isn’t a show-stopper, but it detracts from the look of the pub.  Other pubs have porches, but these aren’t in the conservation area.

 

DS:  this proposal is a good example of working in collaboration before the application gets to Committee.  Most of the work proposed will be carried out sympathetically, and notes reservations about the porch, but the front of the building is already a bit of a hotch-potch, with windows not all the same design.

 

MC, in response:

-          was not aware that the Parish Council has withdrawn its objection. 

 

WT, in response:

-          as pointed out in the Officer report, there are a number of pubs of a similar age and architecture in the Cotswolds which have porches.  The porch will be attached to the 19th century part of the building;

-          the applicant’s justification for wanting to add a porch to his pub is economic - people don’t want to sit at the front of the pub with the door opening straight in, as a draught is created every time the door opens.  Adding a porch will give full use of the internal space;

-          negotiated with the applicant over materials to make sure that the porch would look right at the front of the pub.

 

KS:  was perplexed by the porch when reading the papers, and would have liked to see more colour in the drawings in order to understand better what it would look like and whether it will damage the integrity of the old building. Not all the buildings in The Burgage have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

90.

14/02238/FUL 27 Arle Road pdf icon PDF 75 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

14/02238/FUL

Location:

27 Arle Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of two storey rear extension

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

MJC described the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Rawson to give Members the opportunity to consider the design merits of the proposal.  As set out in the Officer report, there have been similar applications in the area with different decisions – the reasons for this are set out in the report.  The Officer view, however, is that this application does not comply with local policy or the SPD on Residential Alterations and Extensions, and the recommendation is therefore to refuse.

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Townsend, applicant, in support:

Told Members that 27 Arle Road belonged to her father, and that she moved away from Cheltenham to Sheffield at the age of 21 and has been wanting to return ever since.  She now has the chance to do this, but her father’s house is not adequate for her needs – with her partner, five children, and 10 grandchildren, it is just too small.  Wants to create a family home, and also needs additional space to be able to offer respite care to her disabled nephew from time to time. Properties either side of 27 Arle Road have been extended – there is a double extension next door, and a downstairs extension a few doors down.   The houses are staggered at the back, her extension will not overlook the neighbours, and the property will look the same as next door from the front and side.  Was told by Officers that it was OK to build the single-storey extension the full width of the house, but the upper storey should be half the width.  Did not understand which side this should be, so re-submitted the same application.  Neighbours are in favour of the plans, and Councillor Rawson has looked at the drawings and given the proposal his backing.  The downstairs alternations will allow her nephew to visit.  Wants to extend the house  through need, not for profit – is not intending to sell it but to create a family home.

 

 

Member debate:

KS:  notes that the letter of objection is from a resident living across the road; the neighbours on either side of the proposal have not objected.

 

CH:  looked at this extension and the extension next door, which was built before the introduction of the SPD in 2008.  Notes the houses are staggered, and that the application which was refused and dismissed appeal a few doors up relates to a house which is much closer to the road where the extension would have been visible from the highway.  There are lots of extensions like this around the town. There are some extensions which follow the subservience rule and look worse than they would if they followed the line of the building.  Did not look at the SPD when considering this application; is going more on how he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

91.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision