Agenda and minutes

Councillors Chard, Lillywhite, McCloskey and Stennett.

15/00947/FUL - St Margaret’s Hall

Councillor Fletcher and Councillor McKinlay – trustees of the St Margaret’s Hall and members of the user group – will leave the Chamber.

There were none.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th August 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction: 

15/00646/FUL Belmont, Hyde Lane

Page 7, last paragraph

BF :  …The original dwelling was a very small bungalow with a cast corrugated iron roof and one bedroom …

Councillor Barnes thanked Heritage and Conservation Manager Karen Radford for her great contribution to Cheltenham Borough Council and to Planning Committee over the last ten years – her detailed knowledge and advice has always been extremely helpful to Members.  She will be sorely missed. 

EB introduced the application as above, which was originally for five dwellings on the former lock-up garage site. The applicant volunteered to reduce the scheme to four units after discussion with planning officers.  It is at Committee because Cheltenham Borough Council owns the land, and Cheltenham Borough Homes is the applicant. There is a report update, with additional information provided by the applicant:  there were originally 19 lock-up garages on the site, but these have now been cleared.  Three neighbours have right of way across the site, and information about that has been provided.  The Highways Authority has also updated its response, with a further explanation of why it has no objection to the scheme.  In light of this, however, five additional conditions have been added.  Finally, Members should be aware that there is a typographical error at paragraph 6.13 which should read ‘3 x three-bedroomed dwellings and 1 x two-bed…’.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

CH:  one of the representations refers to gated access to the back of Home Close, and to problems with anti-social behaviour and drug-dealing in the alleyway.  Does not know the area well enough to comment, but if there is an issue here, why wasn’t gating considered and is the objector now happy with what is proposed?

SW:  when this was a garage site, it was very much enclosed; youngsters got in and got up to no good.  Once the site is developed, however, it won’t be as attractive for the likes of drug-dealing, rubbish dumping etc.  Would have expected to see more properties on the site, and is glad about the lower density.  Is also glad about the inclusion of photo-voltaic panels, and would like to see these as standard everywhere.

PB:  the highways report states that lines will be used to restrict parking near the junction, but doesn’t say what sort of lines.  This is a busy junction, near shops, where people are likely to park for short spells.  Will there be double yellow lines at the junction to ensure highway safety?

EB, in response:

-       to CH, regarding gating, the original proposal involved blocking off the footpath from Ashlands Road to the top corner of the site.  The neighbour expressed concern that this would cause a dead-end alley and provide an enclosed space which could attract anti-social behaviour and related problems.  In the latest revision, the applicant has removed the gate, and retained this area as an open space.  The neighbour’s issue has thus been addressed; he has been emailed and provided no further feedback;

-       to PB, highways officers have specifically requested a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 187.

Councillors Fletcher and McKinlay left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

CS introduced the proposal as above, to extend this multi-functional community facility with an annex to the existing building.  Permission was granted for a similar extension in 2003, but not implemented.  It is at Committee because Councillor Whyborn is the Chair of the user group (the applicant) and because Cheltenham Borough Council owns the site.

Public Speaking

There was none.

Member debate:

JP:  for clarification, noted that the 2003 permission included a condition to ensure that parking was restricted to users of the facilities; there is no such condition with this application.  Notes that the management group rents out 12 spaces to the local laundry, but by expanding the facility, demand on car parking spaces could increase and spill out into the local area.

CH:  as things change, community facilities need to be more and more available for any number of reasons.  Various groups need to use these facilities, and therefore welcomes the notion that they can be increased.  JP makes a valid point on car parking, and the group’s reliance on income from renting out spaces could lead to conflict, but broadly, we should encourage the increase in the facility, which will enable better diversity of activities.

CS, in response:

-       to JP, officers don’t consider it necessary to include a car parking condition, as the applicants made clear in their submission that car parking provision is currently under-utilised.  Three additional spaces are proposed as part of this application, and the extension will not result in any loss of parking.

KS:  with regard to suggested Condition 4, which states that no amplified music shall be played outside the hours of 8.00-23.00, can activities take place before and after those hours with no amplified music?  People coming and going, getting in and out of cars etc, make noise, and is concerned about the impact this may have on residents nearby.  Otherwise, agrees with the points made by CH.

CS, in response:

-       environmental health officers have raised no objection to the proposal, and their records show only two complaints about noise:  one in 2002 in relation to car doors being slammed after a bingo evening, and one in 2012, relating to loud music at a party.  As EH officers are happy with the proposed hours, there is no need to amend these.

LS:  in Planning View, noted the size of the existing building and the size of the proposed extension.  Cannot imagine there will be a significant increase in the noise levels as a consequence of the extension.  Is also in favour of the proposal.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application as above, on the former Shop Fitters’ site, telling Members that it will provide an additional 42 spaces, following demolition of derelict buildings on the site.  The recommendation is to permit, and the update clarifies a couple of points:  that the Environment Agency has no objections with regard to possible increased flood risk, and that the County Council has no concerns re highway safety.  Condition 1 will make it clear that, if granted, the permission will be discontinued on or before 17^th September 2020 with restoration to its former condition not including the re-erection of the demolished derelict buildings. 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

KS:  if the scheme is approved, will there be any documentation of the site and the interesting buildings to be demolished before they go?

BF:   noted on Planning View that the listed wall that is remaining needs re-pointing and re-building in places.  Is pleased to note that KR’s comments have been taken into account .

CH:  notes there is a condition about lighting, and suggests that LED lighting be used, as it is cheaper to run and altogether better, being more directional and with less drift, so causing minimal light pollution to adjacent properties.  The Civic Society is disappointed that the site won’t be redeveloped for five years, but points out that a scheme can be submitted before five years.  In the meantime, with the shortage of car parking in the town, this is a good solution and will provide a good income.

AM:  reiterating that point, the application is only for up to five years and another application can be made in the meantime.  The site is not blighted. 

MB:  why has a five-year limit been imposed anyway?

MJC, in response:

-       the five-year period was suggested by the applicant, so that we don’t lose sight of the desire to develop the site itself.  If left open-ended, it could be said that the car park is working well and should be retained.  This way, a degree of pressure on the land-owner will be kept up;

-       to KS, there has been no suggestion of the need to document the buildings to be demolished. They are in a sorry state, and this isn’t something that would usually be asked for.  Conditions relate to essential matters without which the permission would be refused, and this would not be the case here. Ultimately, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

MJC introduced the application, which seeks to make minor alterations to the approved scheme as set out in the five bullet points in the report at page 58 [of the Agenda], concerning the plant area, disabled parking provision, internal lay-out, the shop front, and drainage.  It also seeks variations to some of the conditions set out in the description of the development.    It seems complicated but given that some of the original conditions have already been discharged and in light of the cumulative effect of the proposed amendments, officers felt it appropriate to deal with a revised application. If permission is granted, a new planning permission will be granted, with the revised conditions attached.  Members need to focus on the five proposed changes, which officers have recommended to permit. Also, and thanks to PB for drawing officers’ attention to this, the previous application was subject to an S106 payment of £25,000 – which has been paid – and it is therefore important that this application also has the same legal agreement attached.  If permitted, it should be subject to S106 agreement on the same terms as the original consent which related to a build out, pedestrian crossing, and waiting restrictions if necessary.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB:  this has been a contentious application from the start, with the original application refused, and the new scheme hugely better than the previous one.  The current application offers mostly improvements, and represents an important opportunity for the applicants to show their good intentions.  Cages are to be unloaded at the front of the shop, and replacing the block paving with tarmac will make this a much quieter operation – can this be conditioned?  Newspaper deliveries will be very early, and if these can be made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

CS introduced the application as above, for an area to the rear of 41-51 Unwin Road.  The six spaces created will be unallocated and available for anyone in the area to park.  The application is at Committee because Cheltenham Borough Council is the applicant.

Public Speaking

None.

Member Debate

CH:  Cheltenham Borough Homes has unallocated car parking elsewhere, not part of the public highway, and where SORN vehicles can therefore be parked indefinitely.  Can a condition or informative be included to prevent this?  What will happen if a car gets dumped there?

JF:  agrees that demolition of the garages is essential, but understood that the spaces were going to be marked to correspond with the houses, so that only those residents can use them.  Why was it decided not to do this?

CS, in response:

-       unallocated spaces allow for more flexibility and greater highway benefit.  Some of the residents may not have cars or want the spaces.  It is considered counter-productive to allocate them.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT

The Chair moved consideration of 15/01405/FUL 2 Highland Road up the agenda, as the only two public speakers present were registered to speak on that application only.

EB introduced the application as above, which is at Committee for two reasons:  (1) at the request of Councillor Sudbury, and (2) because a previous application for a house on the same site was refused by Planning Committee in March.  The recommendation is to approve, with conditions.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Wendy Hopkins, agent on behalf of neighbours, in objection

This proposal is for an additional dwelling within the current side garden of No. 2 Highland Road.  A similar scheme was refused by Planning Committee in March, due to concerns relating to the architectural design and poor siting of the proposal, which Members felt would be harmful on the street scene.  The house is prominently located, on an elevated plot adjacent to a junction.  The character of the area is a leafy, residential suburb, with largely detached houses in good-sized plots with gaps in between.  This infill proposal will destroy the pattern of the built form in the locality.  At the last meeting, Members took great care in considering the scheme, which must be looked at in the context of the Local Plan, the emerging Local Plan and the Garden Land and Infill SPG.  Policy promotes high standards of architecture and urban design, and this is what proposals should respond to, not fill in every gap with a new dwelling.  The architectural design of this proposal is more pleasing than the previous, but it is shoe-horned into a gap which is important for the local character of the area.  The size of the proposed dwelling has increased, and with the harm to the area, and its siting would be overbearing and oppressive to the residents of 62 Sandy Lane.  The NPPF requires development to improve the character and quality of the area, and any proposal should support the high quality design requirements of local and national policy.  This does not, and it should be refused.

Mr Russell Ranford, agent on behalf of applicant, in support

Following the previous refusal by Planning Committee,  it was difficult to take a clear steer about which way to go with this proposal.  Prior to submission, a number of designs were discussed with officers, and that was the one they felt most appropriate.  At Committee, the principle of development on this site was accepted by most Members; it was the design they didn’t like.  Design is always subjective, but the applicant has worked with planning officers to address Members’ concerns. As it was not clear exactly what was wanted, an appeal against the previous refusal has been lodged, but this will be withdrawn if the current application is permitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.