Agenda and minutes

Councillors McCloskey and Savage

15/00517/FUL Hesters Way Baptist Church

Councillor Fletcher – is Vice-President of Cheltenham YMCA.  Will leave the Chamber for this item.

14/01928/FUL Pittville Campus

Councillors Fisher and Walklett

15/00202/FUL 3 Cleevelands Drive

Councillors Fisher and Lillywhite

14/01677/FUL Garages adjacent to 11 Rowanfield Road

Councillor Sudbury

15/00222/FUL The Acorns, Gloucester Road

Councillor Fisher

15/00354/FUL York Place, 47 Swindon Road

Councillor Walklett

15/01086/FUL Garages/Parking at Ullswater Road

Councillor Fisher

There were none.

Resolved, that the public minutes of the meeting held on 21^st May 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.  (Note:  there was no Planning Committee meeting in June.)

Officer introduction:

CC introduced the application to confirm the TPO at 26 Monica Drive.  The nearest adjoining neighbour at 12 Cleevelands Avenue objects to the TPO for the reasons set out in the report.  Officer responses to these are also given in the report, and the recommendation is to confirm the TPO.

Public Speaking:  None.

Member debate:  None.

Vote on officer recommendation to confirm TPO

15 in support – unanimous

Order is Confirmed

Officer introduction:

LW introduced the application for a new student village, as above.  It was deferred in January to allow the University an opportunity to address the suggested refusal reasons, relating to architectural design and amenity, in particular off-site noise and disturbance during the evening and night-time, as well as the size of the development, number of students, and ability to manage the site effectively.  In addition, the legal agreement regarding highway works and travel plan was not complete. 

Since January, the University and everyone else has worked hard to address these concerns :  new architects were appointed and the University has engaged more directly with local residents through a Residents Liaison Group which has met six times. The meetings have been constructive and focused on detail of the Operational Management Plan, which is now more consolidated and detailed regarding off-site strategies than previously, and no longer based on assumptions and ideas, with no guarantee of delivery.  Fundamental to the officer recommendation to permit is the new S106 agreement which would ensure long-term provision of a late-night shuttle bus, volunteer patrol scheme and continuation of a community liaison group.  This and the highways legal agreement are signed and ready for issue.

It is disappointing that the University didn’t consider reduction in the student numbers proposed for this site, continuing to put forward the economic argument to meet current and increasing shortfall in student accommodation.  This is a material consideration, but the appropriate management of the students is critical, whatever the number proposed.  There are now defined and clear strategies to manage off-site student behaviour and reduce potential harm to neighbours’ amenity, secured long-term via the S106 agreement.

There is still some criticism regarding design and appearance, but the revised scheme is an improvement, more refined and consistent in approach to materials and elevation treatment.  There are no objections from consultees.

The application is now sufficiently advanced for officers to understand and assess the merits of the proposal which, on balance, is considered acceptable.  With the presumption in favour of development unless the adverse impacts would significantly outweigh the benefits, the recommendation is to permit subject to the two legal agreements relating to amenity and highway works. 

Finally, would add that the new drawings on Council’s website replace some of the original drawings which were shown at the wrong scale in relation to paper size. These drawings have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Officer introduction:

MJC described the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillors Prince, Lillywhite and Babbage due to objections about over-development of the site, highways considerations, and amenity issues.  The recommendation to refuse is based on contextual analysis of the site and the SPD on garden land development.  Officers feel that the proposed building is too large for the site.  Members can debate other issues, but they should be aware that the officer recommendation to refuse is based on one issue only.

Public Speaking:

Mr John Gill, neighbour, in objection

On behalf of 100 objectors to this proposal, urges Members to refuse permission.  The proposal is out of character with the surrounding area, which comprises low-scale dwellings in mature and mixed landscapes.  It does not complement or respect neighbouring dwellings or the area; the design of the apartment block is uninspiring and of poor quality, its size and massing incongruous with adjacent dwellings, and will have a detrimental impact on neighbours’ privacy; it has not been shown to be sustainable, apart from being within walking or cycling distance of the town centre; its size, massing and overbearing nature will severely damage the amenity value of adjacent properties; it will lead to on-street parking along Cleevelands Drive, where the road narrows to 5.5m, and The Chestnuts where on-street parking will reduce the road to a single vehicle width; noise and light pollution will increase due to additional traffic and people movements, which will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents; local services, particularly the drainage system, are already under excessive strain and will be pushed even further; development of the site will impact on the biodiversity of the local environment and erode this valued wildlife corridor; the significant and demonstrable harm of the proposal will outweigh the limited benefit of a small increase in the housing supply.  In summary, residents believe the proposal is contrary to the NPPF, the Local Plan and the SPD on garden land.  They are not opposed to redevelopment of the site but are against inappropriate development.

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones, on behalf of the applicant, in support

This application is the second at the site – the first, currently at appeal, was for 14 units, and was refused last December on the following grounds:  unacceptable over-development of the site; architecturally uninspiring; impact on neighbouring amenity; unacceptable overlooking; and impact on trees.  In response, the applicant appointed a new architect who revised the scheme to address  concerns.  The officer report confirms that the principle of development is acceptable, a contemporary design is appropriate, neighbouring amenity won’t be unreasonably impacted, site access and parking provision is acceptable, and protected trees are not harmed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

Officer Introduction:

MJC introduced the application as above, which is at Committee because it is CBC-owned land.  The recommendation is to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking: none.

Member debate:

KS:  considers this a good and useful little development, but notes the neighbour’s complaint about the chain link fence.  The site looks overgrown and unkempt, but is a haven for wildlife.  How can existing residents’ amenity be maintained and the privacy of the new residents assured?  How much greenery will be preserved, and why is a wooden fence not proposed, rather than a chain link fence?

MJC, in response:

-       the chain link fence will sit inside the vegetation, and is included as a security measure.  A close-boarded wooden fence isn’t proposed, so that the new residents will also be able to appreciate the vegetation.  The on-balance suggestion is to maintain a fence at 1.8m for privacy.  It is considered appropriate to the scheme.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Officer introduction:

CH introduced this householder application to extend a detached bungalow, situated at the end of a narrow drive, with access from Gloucester Road. The finished dwelling will be rendered, and replacement windows and doors will be installed throughout.  The existing is one of six bungalows served by the access road.  Land levels fall slightly from north to south, resulting in the properties being built at varying levels.  The application is at committee at the request of Councillor Holliday.

Public Speaking: none.

Member debate:

AL:  if Members are minded to permit this scheme, will there be any restrictions on the size of delivery lorries using the access road?  The drive is very tight.

CH, in response:

-       it is a narrow access, as was made clear on Planning View, but this isn’t a planning consideration.  It is a householder application, and a balance of reasonableness must prevail. The drive can be accessed by appropriate-sized vehicles.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT                               

Officer introduction:

CH described the application as above.  The site is in the St Paul’s Character Area and is currently vacant; it was previously used by a car mechanic and car wash business. There are a number of buildings to the rear of the site, and the boundary to the highway is defined by a 2.4m brick wall, with access from Swindon Road and Brunswick Street.    The site is identified in the Townscape Analysis Map as ‘a significant negative building/space’.  The application is at Committee because the site is owned by CBH, with a recommendation to permit. 

Public Speaking: none.

Member debate:

PB:  this is a great scheme and a huge improvement on the area.  Would just query the railing on the side, and whether we can be sure that the landscaping is maintained. 

JW:  agrees with these comments - affordable housing on a brownfield site can only be good.  Has spoken to some of the objectors, and understands that St Paul’s Residents Association, while supporting redevelopment of the site, considers the large size of the block to be out of keeping with the area.  In response, would say that there is already a precedent for buildings of this size, with the flats and hotel on the south side of Swindon Road.  One neighbour made a complaint about light entry through their window, but officers do not consider this will be the case.   We should applaud CBH for making use of this garage site and providing much-needed affordable housing in Cheltenham.

CHay:  can officers confirm that there will not be spiked railings around the site?

DS:  notes ten apartments and seven parking spaces are proposed.  Will the parking spaces be allocated or free for all?  From experience in his ward, knows that unallocated spaces can cause grief.

CH, in response:

-       to PB, the railings are regarded as a positive element in the scheme, with landscaping retained behind.  Condition 10  provides additional information on planting to ensure that it is appropriate;

-       to CHay, flat wooden railings are proposed, not spiked;

-       to DS, confirmed that parking arrangements are adequate for a sustainable town centre location; the car parking spaces are not allocated, but there are also 10 cycle spaces and car parking available nearby.  There have been no objections from the County Highways Officer.

KS:  has a few concerns about this application but not enough to vote against it.  Agrees with local residents that the area could do with fewer HMOs and flats for a better balance, adding that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

Councillor Fletcher left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

Officer introduction:

MJC introduced the application for the development of ten ‘move-on’ units.  Planning permission already exists for a similar form of development, grouped around a courtyard; this proposal is for two stand-alone buildings, fronting a communal space.  It is at Committee not because the Vice-Chair requested it to be as stated in the report; the Architects Panel objected to it and the case officer asked the Chair and Vice-Chair whether they therefore wanted it to be considered by Committee – which they did.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:  none.

Member debate:

AC:  considers this a brilliant use of the land, a good piece of work.  Fully supports the application.

PT:  notes that the Architects Panel liked the extant planning proposal better – agrees with them, but will not vote against the current scheme.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

0 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

Officer introduction:

CH introduced the application as above, at the rear of Telford House on Princess Elizabeth Way, to create parking spaces following the demolition of an existing row of garages.  It is at Planning Committee because the applicant is, via CBH, CBC.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:  none.

Member debate:

BF:  this is a good idea and a good scheme.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Officer introduction:

CH described the application as above.  The property is mid-terrace, and in the Central Conservation Area.  It is owned by CBC which is why it is at Committee.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking: none.

Member debate:

MB:  noted on Planning View that the building is in a poor state, and is concerned that CBH is renting it out in that condition.

AC:  was also worried about this.  Is the property owned by CBC or CBH?  Why should tax-payers’ money be spent on a private dwelling?

JF:  notes the flat roof of the extension – will there be measures to keep seagulls away?

CH, in response:

-       as regards a condition in respect of measures to deter seagulls here, would not consider it to be reasonable given the scale of the development

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

Officer introduction:

CH introduced this application to extend and refurbish a detached house in Charlton Kings parish, adding a front porch, two-storey rear extension, and windows and doors, with pitched roof and facing brick.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey to consider the design merits of the proposal.

Public Speaking:  none.

Member debate:

KS:  realises that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but this is the strangest extension she has ever seen.  Was surprised when looking at the drawings, not least by the weird-looking concrete roof.  Cannot support this scheme – it looks like two different houses stuck together badly, and the whole point of planning is to avoid this kind of thing.  Is surprised by the recommendation to permit.

GB:  there is often complaints about developments of little boxes, but then also complaints when there is something different .

JF:  agrees that this is really odd, and looks like two separate houses.  It doesn’t do the area any favours.  Agrees that it is in the eye of the beholder, but this proposal is not good, to say the least.

PT: doesn’t particularly like the scheme but most of the development is at the back – although the front porch also looks a bit odd.  Officers have recommended it be permitted, and noted on Planning View that one of the houses close by also looks like it doesn’t fit in.

BF:  the house as proposed doesn’t sit with anything else in the street.  It uses a poor mix of medias, includes more flat rooves, and is out of place in the area.

PB: thinks it’s great.  The house and plot are capable of supporting the development.  The applicant has put in the plans and has to live there.  It is radical, but almost all the changes are at the back.  Will support the proposal.

CHay:  agrees that it looks strange but also agrees with PB that in all its oddity, it works.  It is unusual; more often we see new bits being added to old houses, but here, modern architecture is to be added to an ordinary house. It is an interesting experiment, but the drawings look good, and hopes that Members get the chance to see it when it’s built.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit:

11 in support

4 in objection

PERMIT

Officer introduction:

MJC introduced this application, which builds on schemes considered by Planning Committee a few months ago and is to demolish garage courts, and replace with unallocated car parking spaces.  The recommendation is that the final decision be passed back to officers as the statutory consultation period has not yet expired – it will do so in a couple of days – to avoid CBH having  to wait another month before they can start work.  There have been no complaints or objections to the proposed work to date.

Public Speaking:  none.

Member debate:  none.

Vote on officer recommendation to delegate authority back to officers

15 in support - unanimous

DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS

Committee is recommended to approve the following resolution:-

“That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 , Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3:  Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

Paragraph 5:  Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

7.  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – Exempt Business

Committee was recommended to approve the following resolution:-

“That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3:  Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

Paragraph 5:  Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Vote to approve the above resolution

15 in support – unanimous

Resolution approved

Resolved, that the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 21^st May 2015 be approved and signed as a true record without corrections.  (Note:  there was no Planning Committee meeting in June.)

There was none.