Agenda and minutes

Councillor Fletcher.

Councillor McCloskey

i.              15/01676/FUL Land at Ham Close

knows the applicant through community work in the ward

ii.             15/01859/FUL Cheltenham Cemetery & Crematorium

has worked on this as a member of the Scrutiny and Cabinet Member Working Group

Does not consider either of these interests prejudicial; will remain in the Chamber and participate in the debates for both these items.

Councillor Stennett

i.              15/01238/CONF Forden House, Timbercombe Lane

Is a friend of the applicant; will leave the Chamber for this debate. 

None.

None.

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

MJC introduced the application as above, reminding Members that it was deferred in July to allow more information on badgers at the site to be collected.  The applicant has worked with the County Council to resolve access issues to Horsefair Street, and the County is now satisfied that this is safe.  The lay-out has changed slightly since the July report – it is looser, Plot 2 is re-orientated in the site, and Plot 3 altered to reduce the impact on No. 22 Horsefair Street.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Peter Lidgard, neighbour, in objection

Speaking as a former planning officer and executive chairman of an international charity, on behalf of neighbours, feels that Members had been seriously misled by the planning officer, in addition to valid concerns expressed by the Parish Council and local residents.  There are two contradictory plans: RM2B, which requires removal of the neighbour’s wisteria tree and wall (for which they would never give permission), and M348/03, which leaves the tree but moves the entrance road a metre east and would result in the probable demolition of No. 26 Horsefair Street, leaving an ugly gaping hole in the street scene.  The plans are incompatible; do Members know which one they are considering tonight?  Why do officers consider narrowing the street will make it safer? Lorries frequently mount the pavement as it is, and the proposed build-out will look like the pedestrian crossing on Cirencester Road, making it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.  Is the area of permeable block paving going to ensure no increase in surface water run-off from three large houses in place of the existing orchard?  There is no mention in the officer report that this site was highlighted as being at high flood risk by the Environment Agency – why?   Notes that the badger setts are to be protected, but why hasn’t the officer asked for a survey to ensure other protected species aren’t living on this site? And why has there been no historic assessment of the two cottages, clearly marked on the 1806 and 1810 maps in Cheltenham Library?  This is a conservation area, and the cottages should be protected, not butchered.  Anyone who walks or drives through the villages know how congested and dangerous Horsefair Street gets at certain times of day, and the proposal will make it worse.  Members should ignore the officer advice and reject the application.

Member debate:

MS:  in light of what Members have just heard, can officers comment on the flood risk and status of the cottages?

HM:  uses the street at least once a day and confirms that it is extremely difficult to negotiate.  Is not convinced that the build-out will improve the situation, with heavy lorries  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231.

MJC introduced the application as above, for outline permission to cover lay-out, access and scale, with appearance and landscaping subject to a reserved matters application. A fundamental consideration for this scheme is Policy EM2, due to the potential loss of employment land, and the applicant has been required to demonstrate that there is no demand for the site for new-build offices.  Officers have worked closely with the applicant, and scrutinised the proposal.  As the site appears unlikely to be used for B1 development, the on-balance recommendation is that the scheme be supported, with authority delegated back to officers to resolve an outstanding highways matter – the County want road changed shared surface. The update on pink paper summarises the marketing campaign, much of which is included in the report.

Public Speaking:

Mr David Keyte, agent, in support

Outlined the recent planning history and marketing of the site, which originally formed part of a larger 5ha site occupied by Woodward Diesel Systems and Lucan Bryce providing contaminated Class B2 floor space.  In 2010 permission was granted for employment generating floorspace for Asda and 7608 square metres of B1 use.  Pure Offices occupy 2259 sq m, with consent for a further 3384 for Kier, so the larger site is on course to deliver 74% of the consented B1 and employment floorspace across 90% of the former industrial site.  The application site has been available for sale or to let since 2003; following decontamination, a marketing campaign was started in 2009, which brought Asda to Cheltenham.  Robert Hitchins has continued to market to site, via a webpage, brochure, boards and hoardings, plus more recently targeted websites and local commercial agents.  It has been offered at realistic rates and has attracted some interest which has been actively pursued, but interest has continually waned due to rental levels, market conditions, the out-of-centre location, lead-in times, or the interested firms not being committed to a move.  The site has been available for 12 years and actively marketed for the last seven years, with no firm interest.

Member debate:

LS:  the on-going issue here is one which Members have considered before – the shortage of both employment and residential land in Cheltenham won’t go away, and the planning authority has to consider the potential of this site for both uses.  Members have visited the site twice on Planning View; it is sandwiched between Asda and the Nuffield, close to the A40, so not the most pleasant area for residential development but a fantastic, prime location for employment, with excellent links and long-term prospects.  The speaker said there is no likelihood of the land being used for employment in the foreseeable future, but that depends on how far forward we can see.  We need jobs for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232.

MJC introduced the application as above, which has been amended during consideration, making it more conventional in appearance.  It is at Committee as Councillor Harman’s request, in view of the objection of the residents’ association. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Farmer, neighbour, in objection

Lives at No. 61 next door the the application site.  The local residents’ association considers the plan out of proportion with other three in block, giving elevated views over the gardens of Nos. 61 and 57.  Two adjacent houses have single-storey extensions not shown on block plan. Planning officers have  supported  this scheme, although they did not approve the previous application, although the design and bulk are very similar, though less garden is used.  This proposal is taller, obscuring more light light at 61 and 57, and overshadowing their patio and garden.  On the site visit, Members have seen the effect of the proposal on the garden room window 61, reducing daylight and sky.  If approved, they will look out on a towering blank wall, with no sky. This is a greedy, selfish application, which was submitted without any discussion with neighbours, who didn’t know about it until after the plans were submitted.  The proposal will detract from original building, and Nos.  61 and 57 will lose daylight - this is unacceptable – and neither will the improve or enhance character of area.  Retired to this house in Painswick Road with his wife, and has not made any changes to his home.  This proposal will seriously and adversely impact on their lives.

Mr Keatinge, applicant, in support

Is the owner of No. 59, and has made every reasonable effort to balance planning requirements, personal preference, and third party considerations.  The original submission has been amended and now approved by officers, with wall facings, first floor scaled back, dormer removed for greater overall balance.  Is willing to replace the large tree, which could have impact on No 57, subject to requirement of Committee.  MJC has considered all objections to the scheme, as detailed in the report, and still reached his recommendation to permit, with no grey areas or caveats, regarding loss of daylight or privacy.  The proposal is also approved by various consultees.  At para 6.2.4 of the report, the officer states his view that this is a text-book extension, not dominant, compliant with CP7, not harmful, and well thought through.  The intent is to respect and enhance the central conservation area, where he has lived for many years, making a home for his family, and considers he has been more than reasonable in his effort to achieve this.

Councillor Harman, in objection

 This is the second time in three-and-a-half years an application at this property has been at Committee, and would like to draw Members’ attention to a number of points.  They have heard from Mr Farmer at No.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233.

MJC introduced the application for minor alterations to the Town Hall.  As CBC is the applicant and cannot grant consent to itself, the recommendation is that  Members resolve to grant LBC subject to ratification by the National Casework Unit. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to grant LBC subject to ratification by the National Casework Unit

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

GRANT subject to ratification by the National Casework Unit

MJC introduced the application as above, which has been revised during determination as the  original submission was felt to be over-elaborate. The siting of the proposal has also shifted further east within the site.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Savage, due to the level of objection from neighbours and the Parish Council.  

Public Speaking:

Mr Humphris, neighbour, in objection

Residents in the area of Ham Square are deeply concerned that this peaceful sloping field, used by deer, foxes and badgers, could soon have a large stable block at the end, resulting in traffic passing their gardens at all hours.  There are two major problems:  the size of the stables, and the track.  The stables are massive – 28 x 9.4m, and 4.4m high to the ridge – the size of a large bungalow.  Understands that this application will not go away, so suggests as a compromise that the stable recently built in Mill Lane be used as a model, only 2.9m high to the ridge and blending nicely with the surrounding area.  The proposal has a roof of dark slate, which would be obvious to walkers on the nearby footpath.  A lower roof would also forestall any future attempt to convert the stables into living accommodation.  Regarding the track, it is very close to the houses, and would be better moved away to approach to left side of the stables rather than the right, which will be tight for larger vehicles.  Ancillary problems  include the bright security lights which will light half the field, which is in the AONB, replacing them with intense bulkhead lights, and the stable dung and straw which would have to be removed and not burned on site.  The present application allows for the track and stable to be changed, but not for the horses to be allowed anywhere as a separate permission would be needed to change the use from agricultural grazing to equine use.  Has known the field for 65 years and only ever seen cattle using it; recreational equine use would be too intrusive on nearby residents. 

Mr Oliver Rider, agent, in support

The application highlights all the facts, and addresses residents’ and Parish Council comments.  The site is in the AONB but policy doesn’t restrict all developments within it.  Agricultural development is OK, supported in policy as being in keeping, as recognised in the officer report.  To say permitting this scheme will set a precedent is unfounded – it is a stable block in the countryside, and has been altered from its original form as a compromise to officers’ concerns.  It will be constructed of timber, as is typical for stable blocks, and dark brown in colour, consistent with the AONB and sympathetic with the rural surrounding. Local people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 235.

MJC introduced the proposal as above, telling Members that the site is actually outside the jurisdiction of Cheltenham Borough Council, being in Tewkesbury’s boundary, but the access is via the existing cemetery in Cheltenham.  It is a cross-boundary application, also being considered by TBC.  CBC is only being asked to consider access to the site, which is not changing.  It is a small parcel of land, and the intensity of use will remain the same.  The application is at Committee as CBC is the applicant and the land owner.

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

CH:  commented that the Cemetery and Crematorium are in desperate need of updating; this application unlocks it.  Is fully supportive of the proposal.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application as above, at Committee as CBC is the landowner and applicant.  Members can see a fly-through of the scheme on screen, but this is not the actual version – it has been slightly refined since, but this is helpful to get a flavour of what is proposed and what the finished project will look like.  The recommendation is to approve.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Coleman, in support

About a year ago, had a discussion with Adam Reynolds and Malcolm Wall about an overhaul of the play area in Pittville Park, including budget consultation and what CBC would like to see at the site.  It was clear from the start of the process that the play area – the town’s central play area – needed a significant amount of updating.  Useful views about what could be done with the park led to a project brief, and with expert assistance, useful views of successful developments on similar sensitive sites at Evesham Broadway, Slimbridge, Pontypridd, Worcester, and the Lido at Fort Royal.  Most Cheltenham people have happy memories of Pittville Park as the place to go - there is evidence that some up the play equipment is 100 years old – and will recall the huge slide and iron roundabout.  These are part of the history of Pittville Park, and although it is still a well-used and much-loved area, it is time to update the play area.  In considering this, several factors have been taken into consideration:  the significant age range of children using the park – 0-14 years at least – needing a safe environment to play; the increased capacity required; the attraction of visitors to the park, as a destination; and very importantly, the need to make the play area fully accessible.  On the plans, Members can see a wheelchair roundabout, double-width slide, trampolines in the ground, musical play area, an aviary, and 14 different types of swing, all with the full support of Betteridge School, and also fully integrated in the plans so as not to be noticed.  The birds and bunnies area will also be rejuvenated, as will the refreshments kiosk.  Thanks the professional team and the Friends of Pittville, whose help and approval is reassuring.  These plans are significant, ambitious and exciting, and will bring great fun and joy to the children of Cheltenham and further afield for many years to come.  If permission is granted, work can start in January, and the new play area be ready for summer.

Member debate:

PT:  has looked at all the illustrations and the video for the park, but wonders if any thought has been given to putting the play area on the other side of Evesham Road where there is more space?  It seems to be a little bit cramped and crowded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

MJC introduced the application as above, at Committee because CBC is the applicant, and with a recommendation to permit

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application as above, at Committee because CBC is the applicant, and with a recommendation to permit

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application as above, at Committee because CBC is the applicant, and with a recommendation to permit

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

CC introduced the proposal to confer a TPO of a birch tree at the above address, which the owner would need to remove in order to build a dwelling to the side of his property.  The owner objects to the proposal to confirm the TPO, and Members are being given the opportunity to decide whether or not they consider it reasonable.

Member debate:

HM:  is glad that the pictures on display show the tree in full leaf.  Without leaves, as it is now, it is hard to pictures its positive contribution to the street scene.

SW:  this is a beautiful tree.  Cannot see that it should be removed.

Vote on officer recommendation to confirm order

14 in support – unanimous

ORDER IS CONFIRMED