Agenda and minutes

Councillors Lillywhite and Sudbury.

Councillor Chard – lives in Southwood Lane.  Not prejudicial.

Councillor Barnes – knows one of the objectors and serves on a committee with him.  Not prejudicial.

i.          Councillor Fletcher:  60 Cleevelands Avenue

ii.         Councillor Chard:     Compass House; 282 London Road

iii.        Councillor Fisher:    Former Barrington Lodge Nursing Home; 282 London Road; Land adjacent to Gray House, Harp Hill

iv.        Councillor Savage: 282 London Road; Land adjacent to Gray House; (Ladies College Swimming Pool)

v.         Councillor Walklett:  282 London Road; Former Barrington Lodge Nursing  Home

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th September 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

MJC introduced this application for a single storey dwelling on land to the rear of 60 Cleevelands Avenue, with access via Tilney Road.  It is at Planning Committee because of outstanding reservations on the scheme from the Architects Panel.  Officers have worked with the applicant to lift the scheme – it is now unrecognisable compared with the original submission.  The application site has been enlarged, and the building now sits comfortably within the site.  The recommendation is to permit. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

EB introduced the proposal as above, for four dwellings . The original application was permitted in January 2015, with a revised scheme approved in May.  Houses 2, 3 and 4 are largely complete; this application is for four units, with Plot 1 enlarged.  The changes are detailed in the report.  The officer recommendation is to permit. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Richard Basnett, planning agent on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of the residents of 46 Bafford Lane, situated to the north-west corner of the site.  Has followed the planning application from its conception; it has been complex.  The four houses are now near completion, and the scheme has been significantly amended in the current application.  The siting and proximity of Plot 2 adjacent to the boundary with No. 46 Bafford Lane will be overbearing  The owners of No. 46 welcomed and supported the original application, subject to the correct levels being used for the drawings, but the permission was granted with misstated levels, to the detriment of No. 46.  Plot 2 has been constructed with a large basement, contrary to the plans, as is the originally approved Plot 1 which is 56% larger than originally approved and  thus more harmful to No. 46.  The cumulative effect of all the adjustments are detrimental to No. 46.  If the height of the approved scheme could be reduced, this would be welcomed as it would be less overbearing.  Similarly, a condition relating to no additional windows and doors would also be welcome and the proposed condition for a wall along the boundary.  Currently there is a very large fence in place, urges this condition is enforced and not changed to a fence.

Mr Robert Deacon, applicant, in support

Plot 2 has been amended to lift the kitchen floor to allow disabled access, not to create a basement – although a basement has been created in the process as Barrington Lodge already had a basement.  This should have been at design stage, was rectified on site and amended plans approved. Of the seven properties affected by the development, 46 Bafford Lane is the least affected; measurements from the first floor are as follows:  15m to Brizen Cottage; 20m to 4 Bafford Lane; 22m to 6 Bafford Lane; 17.5m to 8 Bafford Lane; 15m to 4 Lawson Glade to the nearest corner; 21m to 46 Bafford Lane.  The windows on the back of Plot 1 look across the garden of No. 46 but not into it; the windows face the rear garden of No. 4 Lawson Glade but officers do not consider this to be unacceptable .  To confirm,  No. 46  is the property least affected by development.

Member debate:

PB:  this application has been discussed a few times before, and has been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 203.

EB introduced the application as above, with officer recommendation in the report to permit.  One late issue concerns the size of the application site and whether an affordable housing contribution is required.  According to the application, the site measures 0.44h, and Policy HS4 in the Local Plan requires affordable housing contribution for schemes of more that 15 dwellings or sites larger that 0.5h.  Officers have noted a small parcel of land to the rear of the site, and it is not clear whether or not this is owned by the applicant, or to be included as part of the garden.  This needs to be explored.  If it is to be included in the site, the size of the plot will be more that 0.5h, triggering Policy HS4, which requires a 40% contribution.  If Policy HS4 is implemented, the council should explore whether to seek a commuted sum from the applicant.  A revised recommendation, therefore, is to permit, with the final decision delegated back to officers, subject to resolution of the issue.  If the site is over 0.5h, action will be taken on HS4.

Public Speaking:

Mr James Griffin, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Is grateful for officers’ work on this this site, and commends the report and conclusion that the development is suitable for the site. The scheme is a high-quality development in Cheltenham’s urban area, which has been revised to address concerns of officers and neighbours, which concerned planting, plot detail for Plot 1, and screening for Plot 2.  A neighbour objection has been withdrawn in light of these revisions.  The scheme is supported by the Architects Panel, which considers it well designed and interesting, and the Civic Society, which echoes these comments, liking the modern design and good use of topography.   The Parish Council, Battledown Trustees, and Gloucestershire Highways have not raised any objection.  Regarding the ownership of the land mentioned by the officer, only the land within the red boundary is in the applicant’s control; anything beyond is not.  This proposal meets the high standards required by the Local Plan.  Hopes therefore that Members can permit, in line with the office recommendation.

Member debate:

MS:  looking at the block plan, notes that the red line embraces the road/track that serves The Bredons and the property at the back.  Is that correct?  If so the owners of the two new properties will own the access road, and the use of the track by the other houses of the track could become compromised?

PB:  the scheme will not contribute much to Cheltenham’s affordable housing situation, but the views are magnificent and the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

MP introduced the application as above – a contemporary extension to a Grade II listed building, providing an additional 430 square metres of office space, with parking on the lower ground floor.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, in view of concerns from local residents.  The recommendation is to permit/grant.

Public Speaking:

Mr Ian Brothwood, applicant, in support

Is partner of the international law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, which is based at Compass House but requires additional space to accommodate existing staff and future growth.  The firm has been based in Cheltenham for 30 years, and provides advice to major corporate companies, privately-owned businesses and individuals.  The Cheltenham office provides an important centre for specialist advice on key focus areas, and for serving the local market between Birmingham, Bristol and Oxford.  Since moving to Compass House in 2001, staff numbers have increased by 34%, now having just under 90 members of staff, and the firm is looking to expand and grow with Compass House now at capacity, while remaining in Cheltenham.  Additional space from the proposed extension will provide space for a further 30 staff.  The firm has been looking for alternative accommodation in Cheltenham for two years, but there is nothing suitable. Staff and clients are committed to the central location of Compass House, and the decision to seek permission to extend was unanimous among staff and welcomed by clients.  75% of the staff live in or close to Cheltenham and 50% of clients in Gloucestershire, creating clear economic benefits for Cheltenham.  In addition, a conservative estimate of the firm’s business contribution to the local economy is £3million.  Through discussions with CBC planning and conservation officers, have tried to reach a balance, bearing in mind neighbouring amenity, design, and heritage and planning concerns, with the original proposal withdrawn and revised, and the proposal now comes well within the daylight standards in respect of neighbouring properties, as required by the council.  An open evening for neighbours was also held.  Hopes that Members agree a balance has been achieved and can support the proposal, in keeping with NPPF guidance to encourage and support economic growth, the need to reverse the decline in Cheltenham’s office space, and CBC’s objective to attract and retain high-value employment.

Councillor Harman, in objection

Thanked Planning Committee for allowing him to speak – this is the first time he has done so, which indicates the strength of feeling among residents of Southwood Lane, several of whom are in the public gallery tonight.  Could put forward a range of issues which might be very persuasive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

EB told Members that this application relates to 282 London Road, in a prominent location at Six Ways, and proposes demolition of the existing house and the erection of two 3-storey detached dwellings.  The recommendation is to refuse, for reasons set out in detail in the report:  the proposed dwellings are too tall in relation to the two dwellings next door; the large rooves are inappropriate, and with artificial slate the proposed material; and the size and position of the garage, with gable end to the road, is not considered acceptable.  

Public Speaking:

Mr Ian Allerston, Daniel Hurd Associates, agent in support

Number 282 London Road is currently a run-down house surrounded by large trees.  Two previous proposals on this site have been permitted at appeal, where the Inspector stated that the vegetation to the front of 282 London Road makes a positive contribution to the conservation area and screens the site from view, making it less prominent. These new proposals are more traditional than previous ones, with room in the roof for accommodation and a landscape buffer between the street and the houses.  The eaves height matches the existing building; the roof height is slightly higher, but okay in context.  The trees on the site are approximately 16m high, the proposed dwellings approximately 9.5m  - so they will not be visible from the highway.  The proposed materials – brick, locally-sourced stone etc – are inspired by Sixways Hall, and can be seen elsewhere in Charlton Kings and throughout the borough; they are robust and familiar, appropriate to the context, and will stand the test of time.  Regarding impact, these proposals will make little difference to the area, confirmed by the Trees Officer and the neighbours, who prefer the more traditional approach to what has previously been submitted. Charlton Kings Parish Council has praised the proposal.  To sum up, this proposal has more architectural sympathy to the site and context, and no greater impact than those schemes already approved.  Urges Members to support it.

Member debate:

MS:  agrees with what the speaker has said.  Likes the traditional style.  Heritage and Conservation comments are noted, but if the hedges are retained, especially along Ryeworth Road, the proposal will sit quite comfortably in the site.  The neighbours are happy with it.  Will support the application.

LS:  agrees with MS.  This is a derelict brownfield site, and we should be encouraging sustainable development.  The location is shielded from both London and Ryeworth Roads by existing vegetation. There are letters from four neighbours, all in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

MJC introduced the next four application in one presentation – they are basically the same application for four different sites.  The proposed work is endorsed by Cheltenham Borough Homes, and the applications are at Planning Committee because Cheltenham Borough Council is the applicant. 

PT:  in view of the parlous state of local government finances, it seems rather expensive to change doors for the sake of it if there is no real need.  It’s nice to have heritage doors, but if they weren’t there originally, why are they needed now?

GB:  that isn’t a planning issue.

CH:  most of the time, CBH looks to improve buildings in the area.  This proposal is nice to see.

BF:  endorses CH’s comments – these doors will look so much better, and CBH try hard to make the town look good – as long as the letter boxes aren’t rat-traps!

GB:  votes on the four applications will be taken one at a time. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

1 abstention

GRANT

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

1 abstention

GRANT

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

1 abstention

GRANT

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

1 abstention

GRANT

GB:  as this is EB’s last Planning Committee, would like to thank him for his excellent work and dedication to Cheltenham’s street scene.  He has been an excellent planning officer, always easy to speak to, and Members have benefited from his planning expertise.  On behalf of Planning Committee, wishes him good luck. 

The meeting ended at 7.30pm.