Agenda and minutes

Councillors Chard and McKinlay.

i.      15/02097/FUL Naunton Park

Councillor Sudbury – the scheme is part-funded by her County Active Together fund – will leave the Chamber for this debate.

ii.    15/01449/COU Former workshop and garage to rear of 174 Bath Road

Councillor Colin Hay – knows the owner of Clare GardenCottage

i.      Councillor Sudbury – Former workshop and garage to rear of 174 Bath Road – visited the site to explain the planning process to neighbours.

ii.     Councillor Baker – has visited Cotswold BMW and Land off Harp Hill in the past

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th December 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction: 

MS:  fully supports this scheme.  Regarding the musical element mentioned by Councillor Coleman – will this be mechanical?  How will it be generated and at what volume?  Also, the refurbished aviaries – will noise from here be detrimental to nearby houses? and will neighbours be affected by it?  Also, will appropriate steps be taken to protect the animals and birds in the aviary from the adverse effects of development going on around them?

Please note, the two applications at Pittville School, 15/01162/FUL and 15/01163/OUT, have been considered together in a combined officer report.

MJC introduced the application as above, informing Members that a letter of intent has been received,

naming TK Maxx and Brantano (Jones the Bootmaker) as the likely end users.  A retail analysis and sequential test have been carried out, assessing the likely impact this development may have on the vitality of the town centre.  Viability has also been independently assessed.  Sequentially, more preferable sites are available, such as The Brewery and North Place, but with TK Maxx as the anchor, these sites are unsuitable due to their proximity to the town centre.  However, the application doesn’t establish the necessity for TK Maxx as the anchor tenant, so this must carry limited weight.  It is felt that the proposal will have limited impact on the town centre, in view of the arrival of John Lewis and the lack of representations from developers at North Place.  It is this absence of impact that tilts the balance in favour of approval, even though there are retail policies to promote town centres.  To turn down the application for this narrow reason – its questionable impact on town centre – would not be representative of the positive decision making advocated in the NPPF. Further detailed conditions are set out in the blue update to restrict how the development can operate, sale of goods, and the requirement for a legal agreement concerning the dual presence of retailers in and out of town.  

Public Speaking:

Mr James Griffin, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Thanked officers for their hard work on this application, for the balanced report and recommendation to permit subject to conditions and legal agreement.  With the BMW flagship showroom progressing well and due to open in summer 2016,  the owners have been looking at alternate uses for the Tewkesbury Road site, which has been subject to wide marketing.  Despite the size and location of the site, there has been no interest from the motor trade.  Acknowledged officer concerns, but with TK Maxx and Brantano as the named end users, the proposal presents a unique business model. Cheltenham has a strong retail centre and will not be disadvantaged, particularly with John Lewis coming to the town.  North Place is too close to TK Maxx’s and Jones’s existing town centre premises for those retailers to want to open additional stores there, but understands officers’ concerns that they may leave the town centre altogether and has therefore worked with officers on conditions and legal agreements to cover this issue.  The proposal will bring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 251.

CS introduced the application as above, relating to a single storey building on a private road to the rear of Bath Road, in the central conservation area.  It is at committee at the request of Councillors Barnes and Sudbury, in view of the possible impact it may have on neighbouring amenity.  Environmental Health and highways officers have raised no objection to the proposed change of use. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Alex Isaac, neighbour, in objection

Understands the need to strike a balance between residential and commercial considerations in the town, and is speaking on behalf of himself and other residents who live directly adjacent to the development site.  They do not have any objection to the cycle workshop, but do have concerns about the café.  Both the press release and the plans indicate that the café will be the main feature of the scheme rather than an ancillary use, giving rise to three concerns for neighbours:  noise, operating hours, and access.  The noise from 28 people in a warehouse-style room will affect the seclusion and privacy of local residents, and the proposal is larger than many dedicated coffee shops.  The proposed opening are 8.30am-7.00pm during the week, 9.00am-6.00pm at weekends, which is longer than standard trading hours and than what currently occurs at this site.  In addition, if the café closes at 7.00pm, noise could continue till 7.30-8.00pm with clearing up, cleaning etc.  If the café is successful, it will significantly increase the footfall in Clare Lane; illegal parking and congestion are already a problem, and the proposal will have a further detrimental effect, with residents of Naunton Parade and Clare Street as well as commercial premises on Bath Road compromised as a result.  The area is already well served by coffee shops, and given the residential nature of the immediate vicinity of the site, and its situation in the conservation area, hopes Members will take all this into account.

Mr Nigel Clifton, applicant, in support

Is a keen cyclist himself, and his business partner runs a successful mountain bike business which organises events in the Cotswolds. Together they have identified a need in Cheltenham for a space dedicated to cyclists, particularly in view of the massive growth of cycling in Cheltenham and the UK as a whole.  At present, cyclists have nowhere to go where they can park their bikes safely. The premises behind 174 Bath Road were used by his grandfather who was a funeral director and are currently owned by his mother.  The proposal will provide space for 20 bikes, and the expectation is that people will head off after using the café, or use Bath Road shops.  By offering the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 252.

MJC introduced the application, which Members will remember from November Planning Committee.  The recommendation to refuse focussed on the impact and the cramped, contrived nature of the proposed dwelling.  Late in proceedings, highway visibility was raised as an issue, and the recommendation was refuse, but to delegate the decision back to officers, once the highways matter had been fully considered.  Members endorsed this recommendation.  Late in December, the visibility issue was resolved, with the conclusion that there is no highways concern here.  Officers were therefore in a position to refuse the application, based on the substantive reasons, but met with the applicant who was concerned that the application was not presented clearly to Members.  The decision has not yet been issued, so officers felt it right to bring the application back to Members to consider the issues again, as it was not the clearest of recommendations on the previous occasion.  The recommendation remains to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mr Guy Wakefield, Hunter Page Planning on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of local residents who strongly object to this planning application.  Nothing has changed since it was last considered at Committee, and the 2014 refusal reasons can be used to refuse this proposal for a new dwelling on the same plot.  There is an expectation that any new development should preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area.  It is significant that this application site is in the AONB, and great weight must be attached to national policy when determining such applications.  This is a semi-rural location, characterised by large detached houses on large plots.  This proposal would be out of keeping, a viewpoint supported by aerial photos of the area.  The officer report for the 2014 application stated the importance of considering the landscape character when determining the scheme for development.  AONB has the highest protection, and any development must be suitable for the local context.  This proposal is not in keeping with the context, which is characterised by larger plots.   The current unkempt appearance of the plot does not justify this application to improve it, and this would be a dangerous precedent if it were given any weight.  There is no benefit to outweigh the harm this proposal would cause, and to ensure consistency with the previous decision, it should be refused.

Mr Simon Firkins, SFPlanning on behalf of applicant, in support

Is speaking on behalf of the applicant, who addressed Committee in November but found it rather daunting.  Was concerned that there was no pre-warning of the highways issue before that meeting, and is glad that officers have brought it back to Committee now for a decision.  Members received an email last night, stating that the proposal will have no impact on highway safety.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 253.

MJC introduced this application for a mobility scooter store behind James Court on Griffiths Avenue.  The recommendation is to approve.  The application is at Committee because the site is owned by CBC.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

DS:  notes the link fencing dividing the site in two; people living on one side of the fence will have to walk round to the other side to access their mobility scooters, which will be inconvenient.  Is the fencing to be removed?  If not, it should be.

MJC, in response:

-       yes, the applicants have indicated their intention to removed the fence.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

CS introduced the application as above, at Planning Committee because CBC is the applicant.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

CH:  just to confirm, the gravel path will be solid, not loose gravel?

MJC, in response:

-       yes, it will be bonded gravel.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

[Councillor Sudbury left the meeting at this point, having declared an

interest in the next application.]

CS introduced the application, which is similar to the previous one, to construct a bound gravel path in Naunton Park, at Committee because it is a CBC application.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT