Cheltenham Borough Council
Cheltenham Borough Council

Hello, please sign in to your account. New customer? Creating a new account only takes moments.

find our main contact details and opening hours or find our location.

Agenda and minutes

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

212.

Apologies

Minutes:

 

Councillors Barnes, Chard and Colin Hay.

 

213.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

i.      15/01171/FUL Ladies College Swimming Pool

Councillor Mason – is speaking on behalf of neighbours in objection to the application – will leave the Chamber during the debate.

 

214.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Fletcher:     Walnut Cottage, Tatchley Lane

Councillor Mason:       All sites on the Agenda

Councillor Sudbury:    Walnut Cottage, Tatchley Lane; 205 Leckhampton Road

Councillor Walklett:     Ladies College Swimming Pool

215.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

216.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 235 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd October 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

217.

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

218.

15/01171/FUL Ladies College Swimming Pool, Malvern Road pdf icon PDF 66 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

15/01171/FUL

Location:

Ladies College Swimming Pool, Malvern Road

Proposal:

Erection of new sports hall building to provide multi use sport hall, replacement squash courts and ancillary facilities.  Erection of floodlighting of external hockey pitch.  Demolition of existing squash court building and partial demolition of single storey structure attached to Glenlee House.  Alterations to piers to side of access onto Malvern Road.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit 

Letters of Rep:

11

Update Report:

i.   Officer update – comments & conditions

ii.Letter from resident (emailed to Members, 18th November)

 

Introduction:

MJC introduced the application for works as listed above, with the exception of the floodlighting which, as set out on the blue update, has been withdrawn from the scheme.  The proposals stem from a desire to enhance the sports offering at the school, which is not of the quality it would like.  There is extant planning permission for improved sports facilities, but this is geared towards elite tennis and has a different design parameter.  The current application seeks a multi-use sports hall.  It has been thoroughly scrutinised; since being deferred from October Planning Committee, a lot of work regarding the floodlighting aspect of the scheme has been done, but officers still feel it is not ready to be considered by Members, although they consider the rest of the scheme to be compliant with national and local policy.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Dr Sally James, local resident, in objection

This planning application has been difficult, protracted and stressful, and without the professional background of some of neighbours, local residents would have struggled or been overwhelmed by it. Is glad that officers have commissioned an independent lighting assessment, and awaits the report with interest.  Regarding the proposed sports hall, the increased roof height is not justified; the previously-agreed height was reduced, acknowledging the importance of the view, and in line with local policy.  What is the point in having an area plan if it is ignored?  Planning decisions should be consistent.  The applicant has suggested that the area could/should be re-graded as an E3 zone with regard to light pollution – which could have undesirable consequences on the neighbourhood.  Realises that it is important to support local businesses, as emphasised in the NPPF, but is concerned that this application will erode the character of the area.

 

 

Ms Eve Jardine Young, principal of Cheltenham Ladies College, applicant, in support

This scheme has been 3-4 years in the planning.  The college estate is spread over 23 acres, but its central location means it is land-locked and there are no other opportunities to develop the sports facilities in this proposal for the expansion of the current sports hall and multi-use area.  Was appointed as Principal in 2010, and understood the extant scheme to be Phase 1 of few years of further planning applications.  Decided to re-examine the whole scheme, and the application as submitted is the result of three years of careful planning, considering all the alternatives, re-arranging of spaces and changing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

219.

15/00681/FUL Land south of 205 Leckhampton Road pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

15/00681/FUL

Location:

Land south of 205 Leckhampton Road, Leckhampton Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of 10 houses and associated works (revised scheme)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation (including in respect of education obligations if policy supports this)

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

Suggested conditions

 

CH introduced the application as above, which was originally scheduled to come to Committee in October but was deferred at the applicant’s request in order that the plans might be revised to address the refusal grounds set out by the officer. The determiningissues are:  principle of development, affordable housing, impact on the AONB, access and highways, impact on neighbouring amenity, drainage and ecology.  Refusal was previously recommended as officers felt the scheme represented inappropriate development on boundary of AONB.  The scheme has now been revised:  the number of dwellings reduced to 10; the height reduced; larger gaps between the dwellings; plots 3 and 8 pulled forward; trees and planting revised; and fencing on the south-west and east boundaries revisited, with the establishment of a management company to maintain the boundaries and landscaped central green area which would be secured by a s106 agreement.  All these revisions have been reviewed in the update.  Officers consider them to overcome previous concerns, and as a result, three consultees – the trees officer, the landscape officer and Architects Panel - have removed their objections.  The recommendation is now to permit subject to an S106 agreement.  For information, the drawing numbers are omitted from Condition 2 due to IT issues – these will be updated as soon as possible.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None

 

Member debate:

PB:  congratulations to officers on a very thorough and professional job with this application, and also to the developer – the scheme looks fantastic, and will be a great place to live.  On Planning View, Members walked 500 yards through a muddy field to see how the site would appear from the AONB, and it was clear that the design will sit very well.  Is sad that the ash trees will be lost, but everyone knows the problems with ash trees; if the proposal is supported, they will have to come down, but we can ensure that appropriate trees are replanted in their place.  Is happy to support this scheme.

 

HM:  has a question about affordable housing.  The 28-house scheme currently being developed is an excellent one; what is the affordable housing provision with this scheme, and how does it relate to this scheme for a further ten houses?  The two developments are essentially one larger one, with the same developer, same access etc. 

 

SW:  would be interested to hear officer response to HM’s comment – is slightly suspicious that the developer seems to be proposing half an estate just under the affordable housing threshold – is there anything we can do to ensure proper provision?  Also would like to know if permitted development rights are to be withdrawn?  Two houses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219.

220.

15/01048/OUT Land to rear of Nuffield Hospital, Hatherley Lane - DEFERRED

PLEASE NOTE:  this item has been DEFERRED and will NOT be considered at the November meeting.

Minutes:

Application Number:

15/01048/OUT

Location:

Land to rear of Nuffield Hospital, Hatherley Lane, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Residential development of up to 27 dwellings

 

DEFERRED

to allow further consideration of Local Plan Policy EM2

 

 

221.

15/01441/OUT Land off Harp Hill pdf icon PDF 77 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

15/01441/OUT

Location:

Land off  Harp Hill, Charlton Kings

Proposal:

Outline application for the erection of dwelling (revised submission following refusal of 14/01612/OUT)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Delegated Refusal

Committee Decision:

Delegated Refusal

Letters of Rep:

7

Update Report:

i.      Officer comments

ii.     Letter from agent (emailed to Members, 18th November)

 

MJC introduced this outline application, which aims to establish the principle of development on the site and access issues, with other matters to be dealt with under a future reserved matters application.  A previous application was refused on two grounds: firstly, it was cramped, inappropriate to the site, and harmful to the AONB; and secondly, due to highways access and visibility issues.  The applicant has now provided a transport analysis, which states that the refusal reasons on highways grounds should be removed.  As set out in the blue update, there is some confusion around the submitted drawings and relative dimensions:  the drawing is annotated with visibility splays 50m to the east and 54m to the west, but the actual dimensions appear to be shorter.  MJC has spoken to County Council colleagues regarding this, and remains uncomfortable on this point, as visibility is so important, especially here, and could potentially require access to third party land to comply.  The recommendation is therefore that Members refuse as set out in the report, and delegate back to officers the power to explore the highway safety issue further.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Mike Frost, on behalf of applicant, in support

As a family member of the applicant, would like to explain why they feel harshly treated by the officer recommendation to refuse, particularly as it appears to be a borderline decision.  The previous application was refused because it had no support from highways officers, but this application has their full support.  Was unaware of the update regarding dimensions, so has no knowledge of any reservations around this.  It was also refused because of concerns that any new dwelling on this site would be cramped.  This is subjective, and shows inconsistency, as other applications have been permitted on adjacent land, which are more cramped in scale and size relative to plot.  The details of the scheme would be set out under reserved matters; the proposed dwelling is for family use, would not be cramped, and would be appropriate to the area.  Is asking for consistency here; the Battledown Estate includes many examples of small houses next door to larger ones, and only 300m from the site are four houses side by side.  The objections are not balanced; of 13 neighbours consulted, only four have objected, several of whom have already developed their plots.  Neither the parish council or Battledown Trustees have any objection, and the Civic Society called the previous scheme exciting, and hoped for something bold at the next stage.

 

 

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones, agent, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of the residents of Kings Welcome, Harp Hill, who have concerns about access via third party land, and object  ...  view the full minutes text for item 221.

222.

15/01604/LBC Cenotaph, Promenade pdf icon PDF 223 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

15/01604/LBC

Location:

Cenotaph, Promenade, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Conservation of the war memorial to include cleaning of the stonework, carrying out repairs to decayed and fractured stone, repointing,  re-cutting and re-filling deteriorated letters, and incising 8no. new names to match original style

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Grant Subject to Government Ratification

Committee Decision:

Grant Subject to Government Ratification

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

Councillor Walkett was absence from the Chamber during the consideration of this item

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

BF:  this is an application to restore stonemason’s work etching names on the stone.  Part of the original application was for stainless steel flashing and there has been a trial of this in one corner. Will that be included in approval, as it is stated as English Heritage best practice for this sort of work.  It would prolong life of stonemason’s work, and protect if from rain eating into the stonework. 

 

MJC, in response:

-       that aspect of the scheme was withdrawn early in the proceedings – the stainless steel flashing was removed following concerns from English Heritage.  There may be a future application to incorporate this.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant subject to government ratification

13 in support – unanimous

Grant subject to government ratification

 

 

223.

15/01953/CONF Walnut Cottage, Tatchley Lane pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

15/01953/CONF

Location:

Walnut Cottage, Tatchley Lane, Prestbury

Proposal:

Confirmation of TPO No. 736 - walnut tree to the front of property

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Order is Confirmed

Committee Decision:

Order is confirmed

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Hibbert, applicant, in objection

The Senior Trees Officer commented that he had never noticed this tree when driving along Tatchley Lane, which shows that it is only really visible when standing directly opposite the house, and then partly hidden by a laburnum and flanked by conifers – not really of significant amenity value.  It is a beautiful tree but only 1.8m from the building. There seems to be no fixed minimum distance for this, though recommendations of 10 metres or 10 paces, and the National House-Building Federation recommends a distance equal to three-quarters the mature height of the tree, to ensure no problems in future – this is significantly more than 1.8m.  If this tree continues to grow, it will cause structural damage to the house.  The Trees Officer acknowledges the tree has a a structurally compromised main trunk and the crown has been reduced in the past to relieve stress.  The tree was planted around 1979, but the owners cannot have considered the future problems it could cause when mature.  It still a relatively young tree, so now would be a good time to replace it; would be happy to plant a semi-mature replacement – 15-20 years old - in a different position, to give enjoyment for the next 70-100 years. Would not object to a TPO being placed on this replacement tree.  If Committee would like, will also remove leylandii hedge to expose original redbrick wall and provide a highly visible and striking backdrop, with glorious amenity value to Tatchley Lane.

 

 

Member debate:

CC, in response:

-       the TPO came about following pre-app advice on a change of use application which would involve the removal of the tree.  Trees officers feel that it has sufficient amenity value to be worthy of a TPO; the application is at Committee because the owners have objected to the TPO, and officers thought it fair to let Members decide whether or not it should be confirmed. 

 

BF:  what age is the tree and what is its life expectancy?

 

CM:  the speaker referred to the structural integrity of the tree – what are officer views on this?

 

HM:  what sort of a root system does a walnut tree have – shallow or deep?  Are the roots likely to affect the foundations of the house?

 

CC, in response:

-       the tree is about 50 years old; its life expectancy should be at least the same again;

-       the tree has been reduced on a previous occasion – it was done well, providing a nice scaffold for future growth;

-       regarding the tree’s structural integrity,  the main fork is not ideal but not about to collapse.  If the order is confirmed, trees officers would support an application to take it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

224.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.

 

 

 

The meeting ended at 7.45pm.