Agenda and minutes

Councillors McKinlay and McCloskey.

1. Councillor Fletcher – personal and prejudicial – knows the applicant.  Will leave the Chamber for this debate.
2. Councillor Walklett – predetermination – is speaking in objection to the application on behalf of his ward.  Will leave the Chamber for the debate.

·         Councillor Lillywhite– has visited the CBH sites in the Lakeside area (agenda items 6c, 6d and 6e).

·         Councillors Sudbury and Walklett – have visited all the CBC garage sites (agenda items 6b, 6c, 6d and 6e).

·         Councillor Fisher – has visited all the CBC garage sites and the bingo hall site (agenda items 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d and 6e).

There were none. 

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th February 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

Councillor Fletcher left the Chamber before the beginning of this item

CH introduced the application for redevelopment of a site within the Central Conservation Area.  The building was formerly occupied by Ace Bingo, and there are extant planning permissions for the adjacent site (formerly Widdows Motors and land between the former Widdows Motors and the application site). This application is for 11 x one/two-bedroomed render and red brick apartments fronting the High Street, with the top floor set back, and 3 x two-storey town houses to the back of the site, using similar materials.  Car parking for 14 vehicles is provided on site, together with bin and cycle storage. Access is via Milsom Street, Nailsworth Terrace and Hereford Place, with pedestrian access to the rear.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking

Mr David Keyte, agent on behalf of application, in support

Won’t repeat information in the detailed officer report but will concentrate on matters of vehicular access and parking.  The application is for residential use, accessed off a residential street in a sustainable location, with 14 on-site parking spaces proposed.  This is one per dwelling, policy compliant, and the same ratio as required on the Widdows Motors site and almost twice that approved on the adjoining site.  There have been many pre-app discussions with the Highway Authority, which has carried out a detailed analysis of highways matters and requested two car parking surveys of available spaces in surrounding streets.  These both confirm that there are spaces available, and this is referred to in the HA’s response – following its robust scrutiny of highway and transportation matters, it has raised on objections to the proposal.  As a comparison, the 11,500 square feet of floor space of the existing building could be used as a gym or other D2 use without the need for planning permission, despite such a use requiring up to 52 car parking spaces to be in accordance with the Local Plan.  It is clear in this context that there is considerable parking potential in the surrounding streets.  Inconsiderate parking provision can cause problems, but this development is policy compliant, in a very sustainable location, better provided that adjacent schemes, and supported by the Highways Authority.

Councillor Walklett, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Leaving aside the Civic Society’s and County Archaeology’s reservations on the uninspiring building and archaeologically sensitive site, is here to protest on behalf of local residents, concerned with the negative impact of the increased traffic on Hereford Place and Nailsworth Terrace. Does not agree with GCC Highways comments that there is sufficient on-street parking to accommodate overflow parking from the new residents and their visitors.  Estimates the Bingo Hall resulted in fewer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Councillors Fletcher and Walklett returned to the Chamber before the beginning of this item

MJC introduced this application for three dwellings on a parcel of land formerly occupied by garages, but now redundant and fenced off.  It is at Committee because the land is owned by CBH.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

CHay: welcomes being able to talk on CBH applications and the use of these redundant sites for housing.  Has visited a couple of similar developments in his own ward – good schemes, but unfortunately without any their own telephone lines.  We must try to ensure that these houses are built with all services that people expect – not necessarily superfast broadband at this stage – so as not to spoil the impact of the development again.  Otherwise, these are good quality buildings, a real feather in CBH’s cap, using redundant garage sites for desperately needed affordable housing. 

PB:  this is a great scheme, and would again question generally the 5 years condition, though won’t ask for a reduction to 3 years here.  Hopes CBH will crack on with the scheme very soon.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC gave an overview of the next three applications to redevelop CBH-owned parking courts in the Lakeside area, which are close geographically with similar themes,.  The loss of parking space and implications for the surrounding streets is a major consideration; the applicant has considered mitigation and included a parking survey with the applications, which shows that there is capacity in nearby parking courts to relocate existing tenants.  CBH will provide additional parking courts, and there is capacity in the area for more on-street parking.  This is consistently the case across all three applications.  This first application involves the demolition of six garages and loss of ten parking spaces to accommodate two new houses.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Cllr Regan, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Is speaking at the request of residents of Coniston and Keswick Roads, who ask that Members note the petition signed by 17 residents.  One of the most serious issues is the heavy parking on Coniston Road leaves just a narrow passageway for vehicles to access St Margaret’s Community Hall at the end of the cul-de-sac, which is in constant use day and evening.  Two more houses with more car-parking needs will increase the problem to a dangerous level and make an intolerable situation worse.  Is disappointed in the findings of the Entran car parking survey and questions its validity in view of anti-social parking by some residents which restricts and blocks the flow of traffic in and out of Keswick and Coniston Roads and along Windermere Road.  These roads are also used for parking by Paragon Laundry staff.  Members should refer to local plan policy TP1(b). 

There is also the loss of privacy for Keswick Road residents, who would be overlooked by the new buildings which, from their elevated position, will be overbearing and cause loss of light to the rooms and gardens of the bungalows, most of which are occupied by elderly residents at home for most of the day.  This contravenes CP4(a). 

People who object are aware that more affordable homes are badly needed in Cheltenham, but the considerable problems this application will bring to their welfare and well-being will cause much concern.  The positioning of the new building should be the first and foremost consideration.  Asks that a recommendation be made that the Coniston Road ‘B’ site is demolished and made a residents-only parking area. 

Member debate:

PB:  asked if new car parking spaces will be provided before these are lost?

JF:  MJC indicated that other parking areas might be made available to compensate for those lost.  Has CBH indicated that it would be willing to open up other sites for parking in this area? Has first-hand experience of the problem of parking in this area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

MJC introduced this application for a single dwelling on land currently used for ten car-parking spaces, the garages there having recently been demolished.  Again, there is a parking strategy to mitigate the loss of the parking spaces, but again officers’ view is that the application is acceptable in isolation. The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Cllr Whyborn, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Firstly, would commend CBC and CBH for moving forward on the principle of much needed social and affordable new homes, and focussing on brownfield sites – this shows forward thinking and addresses the supply side.  However, has some reservations of his own, and on behalf of residents, nearly all about parking, but also crime prevention, road safely, and neighbour access issues at Ullswater.  Regarding 14/01681/FUL, Ullswater Road has a very narrow bend and cars have to pull into the site entrance when passing.  Many of the bungalows around the site are occupied by the elderly and disabled, but would house more car-owners in the future.  While acknowledging that the demolition of the Ullswater B garage site will help with regard to the loss of parking, Members should question officers about whether this is enough.  Parking on the Lakeside estate is already problematic, exacerbated by displaced parking by Paragon Laundry employees, even though the worst issues are generally in the evenings and at weekends.  Members also need to be satisfied that loss of light, overlooking and neighbour access have been adequately considered. 

Regarding 14/01700/FUL, is very clear that there is not enough parking proposed here to replace the 13 or more spaces and 13 garages that will be lost.  The parking survey suggests the garage occupants can be re-housed elsewhere, but also says that only 3-6 cars which currently park on the hardstanding must be re-parked, which is manifest nonsense.  Has observed nine parked vehicles on a Thursday afternoon, ten on a Sunday, with a further five vehicles parked in the turning head – pictures have been circulated.  Street parking is limited in Haweswater Road, and it is unrealistic and bad practice to expect residents to park in Alma Road, or to displace parking to nearby estate roads such as Buttermere, Ennerdale and Thirlmere Roads, which are already heavily parked.

Planning officers have mentioned an offer to clear a further garage site - Ennerdale B and Thirlmere have been talked about - but this isn’t included in the report.  If the Committee is minded to permit the application, provision of parking through demolition of a further site should be a condition, with the choice of site a matter of consultation with local residents. 

Finally, neighbours are concerned that positioning Flats 2 and 3 next to No. 5 Haweswater Road and Flats 1 and 2 next to 57  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

MJC this application on a garage court at Haweswater Road is for two buildings each housing two apartments.  Thirteen garages and 12 parking spaces will be lost, but a parking strategy and mitigation proposals have been submitted with the application.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.  (Councillor Whyborn had also referred to this application when speaking on application 14/01681/FUL.)

Member debate:

CHay: referring to RW’s speech, asked about the safety issues and the blind alley – can officers raise the issue to ensure that it is resolved?

MJC, in response:

-       officers reflected on this point when writing the report.  This is currently an unwelcome environment, not overlooked and subject to some anti-social behaviour.  The new scheme will place buildings at the front and back of the site, with parking space in the middle.  It will mean a couple of gable ends next to each other, but with a 3-metre gap between the buildings, not a tight pinch point.  Officers consider this will be a significant improvement on what is currently there.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT

CH told Members that Mellersh House comprises two linked blocks of flats, set back from the road behind concrete planters and green verges.  An internal bin chute has been in use for the upper floors but is now considered a fire hazard.  Bins are currently kept on the forecourt, but the proposal is for a bin storage area to house two commercial-sized bins for rubbish and four standard bins for recycling.  The report update seeks to clarify some points raised on Planning View.  CBH sought help from UBICO when deciding on the number of bins to provide, and two commercial/four standard bins complies with their recommendation; there is a limit on how many bins UBICO will provide.  Bins currently on site are always overfull, and CBC is aware of the need to engage with residents of the flats to raise awareness of appropriate waste disposal.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

DS:  Members on Planning View felt that the amount of bin space to be provided is too little to serve 15 residential units.  Recalculations are needed to get this right.

SW:  has seen full bins with unclosed lids, six black bags beside, bottles and cans, with residents saying they haven’t got enough bins.  This will be a similar scenario on a grand scale.  CBC or UBICO need to encourage residents to segregate their rubbish rather than just offer them bigger bins.

MS: will support this scheme.  Feels a more robust storage area in keeping with the property would have been better, rather than the lightweight ones which will soon look shabby, but realises there are financial implications here.

AC:  is basically in favour of this, but wonders how long it will take to get the larger commercial bins out to the lorries for collection.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT

MP introduced the application, which has been reduced in scale, regarding footprint, eaves and ridge height, and number of units.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Barnes, in view of the level of concern from residents of Asquith Road.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Stawinski, local resident, in objection

Local residents have four main objections, compounded by the lack of clear information on what the units will be used for.  Number 1 is increased size and height and the design, with reference to CP4 and CP7, which are not in keeping with the adjacent structures or the fact that the site is surrounded closely on three sides by houses and gardens.  The proposal is much higher and vertically imposing that the current building and will block light to properties in Asquith Road, especially outside the summer.  The exact dimensions are not specified, with the risk it will be higher and larger than the ambiguous drawings suggest. Residents urge that all dimensions should be clearly and publicly specified in advance of construction, so that they can be monitored and adhered to. 

Secondly, with reference to CP3, 4 and 5, what is the justification for doubling the number of units, so increasing noise, pollution and traffic, and what will they be used for? The awkward, narrow access doesn’t cater for large vehicles implied by the proposed double-height doors; vehicles using the site already block access to the rear of some properties on Asquith Road, and Churchill Road is almost always double-parked with limited visibility and risk to schoolchildren – this will make it worse.  These congested roads can’t cope with increased traffic or overflow parking.

Third, with reference to CP4, residents urge the Committee to include the environmental health officer’s suggested hours of operation, to protect the balance between residents’ amenity and business operation.  And finally, with reference to CP6, residents are very concerned that the mature ash tree in the south-west corner of the site is protected.  Its crown was significantly damaged before the TPO was put in place, and construction work could destroy the tree beyond recovery.   The sycamore tree on the Asquith Road boundary is also a cause for concern. 

Residents are not absolutely against the clean-up of this dilapidated site with sympathetic like-for-like development but do not believe the current plans strikes the appropriate balance between supporting local business and the needs of the local community.

Member debate:

SW:  with reference to the tree, there is normally protection for trees included in the conditions, to make sure that the developers don’t damage them.  If it is right to say not seen the actual sizes of the buildings – the heights  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

MJC introduced the application as above, which was submitted after a previous scheme was withdrawn in 2014 due to concerns about height, scale, and highway safety issues.  The current application seeks to address those concerns; the visibility issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of the County.  The application is at Committee due to Parish Council concerns that it does not enhance St Mary’s Conservation Area.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Harris, local resident, in objection

Firstly, the newly-published highways report contains inaccurate and inadequate information, referring to ‘good visibility splays’ at the junction of Church Walk and Copt Elm Road.  Members will be aware from Planning View, there are no visibility splays at this junction, with parked vehicles reducing visibility virtually to nil – a car was written off here during previous building works.  In addition, the principal finding of the report – in the applicant’s favour – is questionable as he carried it out himself.  Officers claim the application is ‘sustainable development’ and ‘environmentally bearable’.  The Conservation Officer states that it represents over-development and land-grabbing with no demonstrable public benefit.  Being on the edge of the conservation area makes it more important, as if permission is granted, there will be nothing to stop the gradual erosion of the conservation area or developers from moving in with further garden-grabbing applications between Church Walk and Copt Elm Road – with access available, the precedent will have been set.

Planning officers say the historic garden plots are less important than their host houses, but this ignores the fact that the integrity of the conservation area depends on the sum of its distinctive features, and is on par with the Civic Society’s one-line comment which does not reference the conservation area at all.  On highway issues, the report on an earlier application here holds good, in that it fails to provide suitable access and parking and should be refused.  Lowering the boundary enclosure could easily be reversed by a future resident. 

This is calculated garden-grabbing in a conservation area, and the only financial interest served is the applicant’s own self-interest – and he is moving away from the area next week.

Simon Firkins, agent on behalf of the applicant, in support

The architect, applicants and agent have spent a lot of time, effort and care in creating a high-quality, well-designed home, sensitive to its context and not in conflict with policy, guidance or any material considerations.  Amendments have been made to address officer concerns, and the report deals with the salient points clearly and in detail.  The conservation area has many dwellings in similar locations, so this will not be out of character, simply continuing the line of dwellings and achieving an appropriate degree of subservience to the frontage house.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

BH introduced this proposal at a semi-detached bungalow on the corner of Ravensgate Road and Wistley Road.  The proposed gates will face Wisley Road.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey, who feels a debate on the wider scene would be useful.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

AC:  understands from Planning View that if the application was for lower gates, it would not need planning permission.  It is only the height of the gates that is being considered here.

BF:  can’t understand the officer recommendation to refuse.  Highways Officers have no problem.  Realises that anything over 1m high fronting the public highway needs permission, but this gate is not out of place.  There are hedges and fences which are higher in the area.  The owner requires these gates for privacy and security.  Can see nothing wrong with them.

MS:  understands the applicant wants to keep a caravan in a secure place.  Does not consider the gates would be a visual distraction, with the hedge either side.  Will move to permit.

SW: understands the property has no back garden, hence the need for a secure front garden.  Has no issue with these wooden gates.  Cannot support the officer recommendation.

PB:  understands the officer recommendation – these are big gates in a road where there are currently no big gates – but there is no objection from neighbours or from the Parish Council.

BH, in response:

-       regarding the height of the gates, these could be up to 1m under permitted development.  The recommendation to refuse is not based on highways issues but due to the visual impact – the Beeches area is characterised by low boundaries and frontages.

GB:  high gates in the middle of a big hedge will look out of place here - supports the officer recommendation.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

4 in support

10 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

Vote on MS’s move to permit

10 in support

4 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION CARRIED - PERMIT

CH introduced the proposal for a single two-storey dwelling with front-facing gable in the side and rear garden of 2 Highland Road, a large two-storey detached house with two accesses, one shared with No. 62 Sandy Lane which will form the access to the new dwelling.  The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposal, and a new one erected.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Wendy Hopkins, planning agent on behalf of neighbour, in objection

Neighbours and the Architects Panel are concerned that this application is of poor quality in both architectural and urban design terms.  The cramped form of development would compromise the residential amenities enjoyed at 62 Sandy Lane. The immediate locality is characterised by properties with a large footprint set in large plots, individual properties predominantly 20^th century and brick-built. This site is visually prominent, on the junction of Sandy Lane and Highland Road, and therefore important in the context of the wider area.  Members work hard when considering planning guidance documents such as the local plan, the emerging local plan, and the supplementary planning guidance on garden land and infill, to promote a high standard of architectural and urban design.  This means proposals should respond to their context and reinforce the sense of place, not filling every gap between every building.  It is difficult to find any architectural merit in the proposed dwelling being considered today, being more akin to a light industrial building at a domestic scale, shoe-horned into a gap existing dwellings, gable end onto road, with plastic brown weatherboard and grey uPVC windows – which do not, by any stretch of the imagination, reflect the locality. The NPPF requires high-quality design, and the need for this is a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning.  Members should consider it would be difficult to support approval of this scheme on policy grounds.  The government has announced this week that architecture is to move from the department of culture to the department of communities, to sit alongside planning and housing – a clear indication that high quality design is fundamental to planning. 

Russell Ranford, agent on behalf of applicant, in support

The design of this proposal is the result of a detailed assessment of the site, and in accordance with the SPD.  Members will have seen on their site visit that a 1.5-storey dwelling on this site is a sensible approach, and far from being shoe-horned into the site as has been suggested, it only takes up 10% of the site, unlike other dwellings in the area which take up more than 20% and are therefore more ‘shoe-horned’.  The plot size is comparable to No. 6 Highland Road, and the plot area and width ratios are 10.2% and 55.4% respectively, lower than others in Highland Road, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.