Agenda and minutes

Councillors Clucas, Lillywhite and Babbage.

14/02039/COU Land Adjacent To 6 Saville Close

Councillor Fisher – sits on Asset Management Committee, and was involved in negotiating for the lease on this land.  Will leave the Chamber for the debate.

Councillor Mason and Councillor Stennett – also sit on Asset Management Committee but as it was not involved in any negotiations on the planning application, will take part in the debate.

Councillor Mason – visited all sites independently.

Councillor Baker – visited Fairview Road and Keynsham Road

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd January 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record with / without corrections

MP introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Regan on behalf of local residents.  Permission was granted to develop eight dwellings on a large portion of the site, shop and lock-up garages in 2007, and extended in 2012 – this is therefore extant, and the principle of building on this site is established.  The main consideration of the current application relates to the loss of employment land, as set out in Local Plan policy EM2, brought about by the addition of three further terraced houses on the Alma Road Garage site.  The developers have stated that eight units on the site is unviable, due to remediation costs.  They have provided a viability report, verified by the DVS, to demonstrate this.  The extant permission will not proceed for this reason, so Members have to consider what is more valuable – employment land or dwellings.  There is an argument for departure from the development plan, which would unlock the consented unviable scheme.  On balance, therefore, the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Godwin, neighbour, in objection

Has lived directly behind the development site for 36 years, and is most concerned with two important issues arising from this proposal.  Firstly, the intrusion of privacy:  three two-storey houses will be positioned adjacent to her back garden with a direct view into her home and garden, thus totally compromising her privacy, unlike other neighbouring properties which only have bungalows behind them.  Privacy and security are particularly important to her and her family, having suffered from harassment and racial abuse for many years.  The second concern is for the health and safety of her family and neighbours:  the garages have asbestos roofing and the land is contaminated by heavy metals, inorganics, petroleum hydrocarbons and other carcinogenic substances identified by a ground investigation in 2014.  Would like to request that exhaustive testing be carried out to confirm that contamination is not presently affecting water supply and soil in her back garden, and that, during removal of the contaminants from the site, dust particles be extracted from inside neighbouring homes and gardens to verify that no contaminants are reaching them.

Mr Kendrick, agent, in support

This land has long been earmarked for redevelopment, with planning permission for the majority of the site already in place.  This cannot proceed, however, without the removal of the garage.  Realises that this is a valued facility for some residents, although others do not enjoy the noise and parking issues.  By its nature, customers have to drive to a garage, so its location is not as critical as, say, a medical centre.  The existing landowner has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Consideration of this application was deferred to March.

MC described the proposal as above, a retrospective application for listed building consent for the Banksy mural and communication dish on the gable end of this property.  The application seeks to authorise the works and no more.  Officers have asked the applicant to consider how the artwork can be retained in view of the poor condition of the render – this is set out in the officer report.  Officers are confident that repairs can take place without compromising the mural, and the recommendation is therefore to permit.  As stated in the conclusion of the report, authorisation does not and cannot automatically mean retention.  The applicant does not own the building. If authorised, there may be further applications concerning the mural – the current application is just to authorise the work.

Public Speaking:

Mr Possee, owner of 159 Fairview Road, in objection

The Banksy mural was created without the permission of the property owner, and on a listed building is not only unauthorised but also a criminal offence.  The building is currently empty and uninhabitable, in need of damp-proofing repairs, with the render in a state of disrepair which makes it dangerous to the public.  The applicant has only given vague reassurance to officers on how he intends to fix it.  This architectural style of building was not intended to have any kind of art of its wall; the building may be in a poor state, but it is valuable due to its age and architectural design, and the mural does nothing to protect the character of the building.  By adding it to the building’s listed status, there are many unanswered questions:  how it will be retained in the long term; how can the unstable render be repaired while keeping the mural in place; how can the house continue to be used as a residence.  The applicant has failed to answer these questions, and the repair of the defective render is not being considered.  The retention of the mural is impeding the repairs, and until this can be done, the listed building must remain unoccupied. 

Mr Kaveh, applicant, in support

Thanked officers for their clear and well-balanced report.  A number of people have given up a lot of time to secure this artwork for Cheltenham, including Martin Horwood MP and the business community. There has been national and international press interest in the case, and the local economy has benefited from the tourism that it has brought and continues to bring to the town.  It only makes sense for this artwork to stay in Cheltenham.  If listed building consent for it is granted today, this won’t be the end of his investment of time and financial input  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

BF left the Chamber before the beginning of this debate.

MJC introduced this material change of use application, on land adjacent to Saville Close and Albemarle Gate, on the edge of the conservation area.  It is at Committee because the land is council-owned.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for clarification – is it two beeches or two benches indicated on the drawing?

PB:  this is a lovely application to consider, and a considerable enhancement of this part of town.

MP, in response:

-       to PT, the drawing shows two benches, but is only an indicative lay-out.  The actual use of the land is being looked at.

CM:  hopes that Members will agree to this land being put to community use, and that all the fruit produced can be used and sold locally. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

BF returned to the Chamber before the beginning of this debate.

MP described this householder application as above.  This is a semi-detached property in the conservation area, and revised drawings have been submitted to address officers’ initial concerns about the design.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, following objections from two neighbours. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate: 

KS:  this is one of those difficult applications for ward councillors to deal with - an extension which the neighbours object to – and trying to take a balanced view isn’t easy.  The occupant of a house nearby is extremely distressed about the proposal, which is why KS asked for a Committee decision, as it is more transparent and should offer peace of mind.  Revisions have been made to reduce the impact on neighbours, although KS remains concerned about the neighbour who is still not happy.   It is for Members to decide if this is a reasonable extension, on planning grounds.

MS:  as these schemes go, this one looks quite good.  If it difficult to find any planning reason to refuse it.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 7.30pm.

There were none.