Agenda and minutes

There were none.

15/02269/FUL 83 Hewlett Road

i.              Councillor Fletcher – pre-determination – will leave the Chamber.

ii.             Councillor Savage – lives two doors away from site – will leave the Chamber.

i.              Councillor Fletcher:  Pittville School; 83 Hewlett Road; 73 Leckhampton Road.

ii.             Councillor Baker:  Pittville School; 83 Hewlett Road; 73 Leckhampton Road.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 21^st January 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

MJC introduced the application as above, for a BMX track in the southern corner of Burrows Field.  It is at Planning Committee because the borough council owns the land, and the proposal has been the discussed in detail with the Parks Team.  The recommendation is that planning permission should be granted. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Jim Walker, on behalf of applicant, in support

Is speaking in support of the application, as the father of four boys, regular user of Burrows Field to walk his dog, and also as the 1000^th member of Leglag.  Considers there are three main issues here.  First, safety:  Cheltenham is an ideal cycling town, flat, well-connected and accessible, but a recent transport survey at Leckhampton Primary School revealed that 71% of parents drive their children to school, and not one child cycles to school.  Cheltenham’s MP Alex Chalk is campaigning for more women and children to cycle.  Sales of bikes are up, but 67% of cyclists don’t feel safe on the roads.  This facility will offer a place to learn and acquire skills.  The pump track isn’t just for one child; it is for all local families to have fun on their bikes. 

Secondly, fairness:  there is not enough provision for post-toddler children in Leckhampton.  There are BMX tracks in Bishops Cleeve and the Forest of Dean, but nothing here, which just isn’t fair.  Four years ago, local children wanted a track and asked for support; he did not help as the undertaking seemed so daunting.  When he heard that another local parent was going to go for it, felt he could support it and help give the children their day, and encourage them to use this public space on daily basis.

Thirdly, the localness of Leckhampton.  Residents can get to the hill on foot, walk to town; it is a happy, friendly community but is under threat with new houses being built on its boundaries.  This will be local facility for local people, and will help sustain the fields for the future, allowing Leckhampton people to continue to enjoy them for many years to come.

Dr Helen Tomlinson, local resident, in objection

Speaks as a Cheltenham resident, who has lived within 0.2milies of the proposed BMX track for 30 years, as a doctor and as a mother of a six-year-old child.  There is clearly significant level of concern about the proposal, with 200 representations on line of which 117 were in objection.  There were also two petitions, 274 signatures against  and 184 in support.  Within a 0.5-mile radius, 92 people objected and only 8 were in support, with many supporters from as far away as Swindon, London and Leeds. 

This is a well-loved, beautiful and peaceful green space, well used, and a place to be undisturbed.  It is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.

LW introduced both application at Pittville School, the first as described above, and the second an outline for 58 dwellings, with access only to be agreed and all other issues relating to design, appearance, layout and landscaping to be considered at reserved matters stage.  Access to the dwellings would be via the new estate roads through adjoining Starvehall Farm leading onto New Barn Lane, and also include cycle and pedestrian links to Albert Road and Cakebridge Road.  These are stand-alone applications, but were submitted alongside each other and are entirely interrelated, with the residential scheme presented as an enabling project to cover the construction costs and delivery of the new sports facilities.  This provides justification for the loss of the playing field which the Council would otherwise not support.

The applications were deferred from the January meeting to allow time to reach agreement on the triggers for phased release and occupation of the housing scheme, to ensure the construction of the sports centre is started before commencement of the housing development, and that the sports facilities are complete and fit for purpose prior to completion of the housing scheme.  The construction of the two sites should run roughly in parallel and the legal agreement delivers this.  It has also been confirmed that construction costs of the sports hall will be covered by the value of the residential scheme which will also provide 40% affordable housing. 

Officers now have confidence for the proposed delivery mechanisms and the recommendation is therefore to permit both applications subject to conditions and the applicant entering into bilateral legal agreements and a final draft of the S106 agreement now in place and agreed. 

A holistic approach has been taken in assessing the two schemes, but two debates and two votes are needed. 

GB:  the sports hall application will be considered first.  The County highways officer is present, and also a representative of the Local Lead Flood Authority – Matthew Panou –to answer questions  relating to drainage and flood risk.

Public Speaking:

Mr Michael Canning, local resident, in objection

His and his neighbours’ homes are vulnerable to flooding from Wyman’s Brook between Prestbury Road and Albert Road, which flooded in 2007 and is officially a high flood risk area in Environment Agency records.  The Albert Road culvert is the smallest of local culverts and therefore a bad pinch point, causing the brook to back up and flood, and to make matters worse, water is delivered to this section from local run-off and from tributaries bringing water from further afield.  With four new building developments, yet more water could be delivered into this already over-loaded section at times; residents need solid assurance that the sustainable drainage systems will work in practice, and expert  ...  view the full minutes text for item 265.

Please note, 15/01162/FUL and 15/01163/OUT have been written as a joint report – see above.

Public Speaking:

Mr Joe Mar, local resident, in objection

Lives in Pittville Crescent Lane, and in 2007, his and his neighbour’s gardens were flooded by the overflow from Wymans Brook.  Endorses comments of objector to previous application, and regards it as paramount that these applications do not adversely impact on those living near Wymans Brook, but fears that they will.    The heart of the problem is the culvert under Albert Road, the smallest of a sequence of culverts upstream, which creates a bad pinch point causing the brook to back and flood.  Tributaries bringing water from the new development will make matters worse, bringing more water to the final section of the brook, particularly the tributary entering the brook at the south east corner of Pittville School playing fields.  The brook takes run-off from Pittville School and Starvehall Farm, and will take the run-off from the housing development being considered tonight.  Notwithstanding the effects of any future climate change, even the same rainfall as hitherto will result in run-off rate from hard surfaces much faster; in periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall, the tributary will empty into an already overburdened Wymans Brook at a faster rate and compound the situation at the pinch point. Is not anti the development but objects to the lack of consideration for the downstream impact of this and other proposals, and seeks assurance that it will not be allowed until the LLFA endorse a holistic SuDS solution which takes account of the current state and capacity of the brook, and includes the ability to alleviate potential water back-up at the pinch point.  Respectfully requests that these concerns are covered by a condition to any proposal the Committee may grant.  

Mrs Sally Tagg, agent, in support

Speaks as planning consultant for Pittville School.  Regarding the principle of development, the proposal is situated in a highly sustainable location – a school playing field, protected unless specific circumstances exist.  In this case, the disused grass football pitch would be used for an enabling development to facilitate the provision of new indoor and outdoor sporting facilities.  The proposal includes an all-weather hockey pitch to replace the lost playing field, with the advantage of being usable all year round.  A playing pitch assessment has been undertaken to evaluate the number and quality of grass pitches in the area, revealing a surplus of reasonable pitches, but a lack of hockey facilities – so the loss of a football pitch to provide a hockey pitch and sports centre is considered acceptable. 

In addition, the borough has a housing supply deficit and a need for new affordable housing, and any harm arising from the loss of the playing field will be off-set by the wide-ranging benefits to the school  ...  view the full minutes text for item 266.

Public Speaking:

Mr Simon Firkins, agent, in support

The proposal is for the conversion and extension of this vacant and underused building to provide nine additional flats, and has been subject to positive discussions with officers throughout.  The principle of converting to residential use is acceptable in this very sustainable location, and the flats will contribute to the borough’s housing supply without taking up green belt.  The building has been vacant for over a year, and various attempts to rebrand the venue have been unsuccessful and unviable.  It has not been let on a proper lease for over four years, despite extension marking, including a site board for two years.  It is starting to deteriorate, and this proposal will safeguard the long-term viable future of the property.  Times change and people don’t use pubs as they used to.  The report confirms, as tested at appeal, that there is no local plan policy for the retention of this use, and in any case there are 30 or so licensed premises within 1km walking distance.  The conservation officer has also noted that the original use of the building was residential.

In Fairview, The Feathered Fish, the Beaufort Arms and the cricket club all offer similar facilities including function rooms, and the Fairview Community Association advertises its meetings at the cricket club.  There are six churches and schools offering space to hire. 

Regarding parking, county highways officers have raised no objection, drawing attention to other acceptable uses and the traffic these would generate.  The parking survey shows there is more than enough space locally for future occupiers of the flats, including during times of greatest demand.  In an area where 70% or so of homes have no car or just one car, car ownership of these small units is likely to be very low.  Lack of parking on site will therefore not cause any dangers and is not a reason to refuse the scheme.   

Amendments have been made to remove part of the roof extension, with extra detailing added to the elevations.  There is no impact on neighbours’ amenity.  The applicant has a record of careful renovation of historic buildings for on-going commercial use, such as the former Court House for Jamie’s Italian.  Residential conversion is the logical alternative to commercial use to safeguard the property. 

The report provides detailed and robust justification for the proposal, with no objection from the Conservation Officer, Architects’ Panel or County Highways.  The scheme complies with all planning policy and the case to support it is compelling.

Mr Gary Stacey, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Represents the Fairview Community Association, a group of local people who believe that national and local government policy gives people a say in shaping their environment.  They are asking Members to reflect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 267.

MP introduced the proposal as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Chard due to high level of local concern about parking and highways safety issues.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Jon Hayes, local resident, in objection

Represents residents of 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 75, 77, 79, 83, 100 and 102 Leckhampton Road, who formally object to the application because of adverse impact on parking for immediate neighbours, concerns for safety of all Leckhampton Road users (including dental patients),  and loss of a prime residential property setting an uneasy precedent in this residential area.  The highways report suggests 16-47 potential parking spaces in the immediate vicinity, but neighbours beg to differ – a map has been provided to show that objections to the proposal come from immediate neighbours, who experience obstructed driveways on a daily basis which can only get worse if the application is permitted.  Residents challenge the proposal that only two additional parking spaces are needed and ask why Leckhampton Road and Southcourt Drive should become the de factor car park for Arnica, without concern for other residents, or their friends and family needs.  It is not an equitable proposition, and would question whether any consideration has been given to the additional car parking needs of the 33 new dwellings at Leckhampton Place.

Leckhampton Road will become more dangerous for all parties.  Long-standing residents question the number of accidents and incidents listed in the highways report – many go unreported and every resident has experienced near misses as a result of obscured vision in accessing Leckhampton Road.  Cars parked between houses mean that residents are forced to the opposite carriageway to enter the road, and cars are often seen using the pavement to gain safe access.  The dental practice specialises in sedentary work, and sedated patients are often witnessed returning to their cars on the busy main road. 

This is not an exercise in NIMBYism, but a genuine concern from all the immediate neighbours that this is an unsafe and unsuitable application.  A more suitably located premise with appropriate infrastructure could and should be found.

Mr Laurence Hale, applicant, in support

With his partner, has owned and managed the dental business since 2000, treating nervous and phobic patients, including life-changing procedures.  Due to government legislation, the business needs to restructure to survive, proving a ground floor surgery for less mobile patients, a recovery room for sedated patients (no sedated patient is ever allowed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 268.

MJC introduced the application as above, and reminded Members of the long back story set out in the officer report, relating to the Property arm of the Council swapping land with Chapel Spa in order to facilitate the Portland Street development.  At that point, it was felt that the harm to the listed building as a result of allowing parking in front of it was outweighed by the advantage of using Warwick Place as a bus node.In view of the strong objection from the Heritage and Conservation team regarding harm to the listed building, a temporary consent is now proposed, with the hope of finding a better resolution in due course.  This seems a reasonable way forward.

Public Speaking:

Mr Mena Louka, applicant, in support

The proposed parking is to the side of Chapel Spa, not in front of it, and will not impact on its setting.  Photos provided show a car parked on the left of Chapel Spa between 2003 and 2005, when it was owned by Centre Parks; a Chapel Spa parking area in 2009, fenced off by the council since July 2014;  and the applicant’s own private car parking before it was fenced off in 2014.  Chapel Spa staff cannot afford to pay £10 a day for parking.  The business attracted 7610 visitors, 20% from Cheltenham, 19% from London, and the rest from elsewhere in the UK.  It employs 20 staff, and in the first year after purchasing Chapel Spa in May 2014, the number of working hours has increased by 16,000 – so increased visitor numbers, increased employment, and improvement to the listed building.  Did not originally want a dropped kerb, as owned private parking spaces in the street beside Chapel Spa until the council fenced it off.  Was then persuaded to swap his land for the two parking spaces to the side of Chapel Spa, which the council owned.  Feels he has been treated very badly by the council, denying him and his staff access to his private parking spaces.  Does not understand why this is happening, and wonders if it is because he is not British.

Member debate:

SW:  considers the speaker’s last comment insulting both to officers and the council.  It should be withdrawn.

KS:  doesn’t blame the applicant for feeling aggrieved, and has no problem at all with this application.  Cars have parked here for many years; it isn’t a problem, and the fact that the council was prepared to do a land swap suggests that the listed building isn’t all that important.  We have to be fair; the land has been fenced off and the applicant can’t park his car on his own land.  This application should be permitted, without any time limit.

AM:  agrees with KS, but considers a two-year time limit sensible.  Has sympathy with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 269.

EP introduced the application as above, which will involve the demolition of the remaining garage block on the site.  It is at Planning Committee because the council owns the land.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  cannot support this application – this is not a good place for people to live, with an outlook to the back of the flats.  The whole area should be redeveloped, not just this part of it.  They are nice houses, and will be nice homes, but not here – anywhere else would be fine.  This could be nightmare accommodation, with anti-social behaviour in the area.  A more holistic scheme is needed.

AM:  agrees with KS that the siting of these houses is not perfect, but we all know about the lack of social housing, and these will provide much-needed homes.  Starting afresh is not option in the world we live in; this is an acceptable planning application which will provide homes for people who need them.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application for alterations to the Town Hall, at Committee because the Council owns the building and is the applicant. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  Members were told on Planning View that Bath stone may be used for the repairs; it should be Cotswold stone, which contains iron oxide and will age to a golden colour in keeping with the rest of the building.  Bath stone will stand out.  The planning authority should look after its listed buildings; to deviate would be a crime.

MJC, in response:

-       there was a debate on Planning View about Bath stone and Cotswold stone.  Bath stone is harder and will weather better.  There is a suggested a condition that a sample be provided, to ensure a good match, but if Members wish, they can ask for a condition to insist on Cotswold stone only.

AC:  owns a house in a Regency terrace and was told that only original materials could be used for any alterations.  Would therefore propose adding a condition to insist on Cotswold stone.

Vote on AC’s move to include a condition for Cotswold stone

8 in support

2 in objection

2 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with additional condition

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

LW introduced the application to convert half of this building from a function room to a café.  The council owns the building which is why it is at Planning Committee.  A site notice has been posted, and public consultation expires tomorrow, so if Members are minded to permit, they can delegate authority back to officers for issuing of the final decision.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with decision delegated back to officers

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT – delegate authority back to officers to issue decision

MP introduced these applications for mobility scooter stores, made by Cheltenham Borough Homes on behalf of Cheltenham Borough Council. 

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Please see above.

Please note, 15/02242/FUL and 15/02247/FUL have been considered as one item.  The joint report is attached to Agenda Item 6k.

Please see above.

MJC introduced this relatively straightforward report, explaining that planning authorities were given the option of granting permissions with a five-year time limit for implementation, rather than the government default position of three years, in view of the economic situation and to avoid being swamped with applications to renew due to non-implementation.  The economic situation has now improved and CBC proposes a reversion to three years from 1^st March.

PT:  is concerned about this.  Lots of developments aren’t started within the five years.  Is there no stick to make developers start work so we get the houses built more quickly?

GB:  a three-year time limit is more of a stick than five years.

AM:  a problem the council has at the moment, with the JCS debate still ongoing, is that the government judges us on how many houses are completed, not granted.   30% of houses are not built within five years; reducing the time limit from five to three years will give more opportunity to put pressure on builders to get on with it, in the knowledge that if they have to renew their planning application, it may be refused.

DS:  understands that this will only apply to new applications.

Vote on officer recommendation to reduce time limit for planning permissions from five years to three years, starting on 1^st March

14 in support – unanimous

RECOMMENDATION AGREED

There were none.