Agenda and minutes

There were none.

There were none.

There were none.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th February 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction, made by Councillor Stennett:

Page 16:

MS:  …both MS and Councillor Payne have asked for a committee decision, as they want to understand what exactly is being proposed for the site and what has changed since the outline stage.  They want the opportunity to look at this before it is permitted, but are being told by officers that this is not necessary.

To be replaced with:

MS:  ‘…Councillor Stennett and Councillor Payne have asked for a committee decision as they want the opportunity for residents to look at the application before it is permitted, but have been told by officers, supported by the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Councillor McKinlay, that this is not necessary.’

MP introduced the application as above.  It is at Planning Committee following an objection from the Parish Council, which considers that the extension will have an overbearing effect on the neighbouring property.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr David Trendle, applicant, in support

Thanked planning officers for their support of his clear intention to create a family home from a run-down house purchased a year ago, through careful and sensitive refurbishment and modernisation.  Engaged with planning officers and neighbours from the start, and took advice to ensure a good design.  The proposed extension is subservient, stepped back from the main dwelling, and fits well in the street scene without harming the amenity of the neighbours.  It is situation 5m from the neighbour’s boundary, and 19m and 13m in from the boundaries to the west and east – much reduced in size from the first application.  There are to be no windows or doors on the neighbour’s side, and additional screening for privacy and seclusion is a priority and can be assured.  Will take any preference of the neighbours into consideration for this. 

Member debate:

PB:  this is a superb scheme, a clever, high-quality design and a huge improvement on what is currently there.  It is fantastic to see this property coming into use as a family home, and fully supports the proposal.

MS:  agrees – this is a planning gain.  It will improve the street scene, a sensitive modernisation, and the improved house will not be incongruous in the area.  We should be appreciative of this proposal.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC introduced this retrospective application for an HMO for seven people, explaining that planning permission is needed for conversion of a house to an HMO for more than six people – conversion for up to six people comes under permitted development.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Walklett amid concerns in St Paul’s about the proliferation of HMOs.  The recommendation is to grant planning permission.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

JF:  received an email from St Paul’s residents this morning, concerned about the proliferation of HMOs in their area.  This is a real concern, and the council needs a meeting to discuss the way forward.  Asks that this be taken on for further discussion between officers and all councillors. 

PB:  supports the application but agrees with JF.  Was previously a councillor for St Paul’s, and can see that the ward has now changed beyond all measure.  CBC needs to look at what it can do to prevent the gradual degradation of the area.  Other college towns have the same problem, as do other parts of Cheltenham.

PT:  agrees with what has been said so far, and faces similar issues in St Peter’s, with some streets practically at war over car parking.  Is there any legislation in planning to say only a certain number of HMOs can be created in an area, and further applications have to be turned down?

HM:  has similar concerns about the number of HMOs in the town, but is also worried about the adequacy of accommodation for the people living in them.  There are A4 directives CBC can adopt, and suggests the Planning and Liaison Member Working Group looks at this when looking at the Local Plan.

MS:  supports the application, and agrees that the time to discuss this issue is when developing the Local Plan – there is a problem in St Paul’s, St Peter’s and elsewhere.  New policies will help the Planning Committee in their decision-making.

BF:  is concerned about the number of people living in a single dwelling in the event of emergencies.  With the loft converted to a bedroom, it could be hard to get everyone out in the event of a fire.  Realises this is a retrospective application, but what about fire regulations?  How many people can live safely in an area this size?

SW:  has the same concerns as other speakers, but is also taking a different angle.  Students need somewhere to live.  Having seen the property, wonders how it can accommodate seven people; we need to look at the quality of HMOs for everyone, including students.  Supports BF’s concerns about fire regulations, his own son having had a lucky escape from a fire in a student house, and would like to be sure that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 285.

MP introduced the application, similar to those considered at the last two meetings, for mobile scooter stores at Cheltenham Borough Homes-owned properties, and at Committee because the applicant and the owner is Cheltenham Borough Council.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

CH:  raised the issue about providing facilities to charge mobility scooters when he was a member of CBH.  Without proper stores, they had to be charged in corridors, creating a fire risk, as well as  a health and safety risk with trailing cables.  These proposals are an excellent idea for the tenants, and will improve their lives – is very pleased to see them introduced.  It’s a shame that they can’t be more attractive structures and less utilitarian, but they work, and that is the main consideration.

GB:  CBH is doing a very good job updating properties round the town; this scheme forms part of that work and is a positive way forward.  There has been some discussion about why straightforward applications such as this have to come to Committee.

MJC, in response:

-       Planning Committee has considered a lot of these applications over the last few months, with CBH upgrading its housing stock.  The relationship between CBC and CBH requires that they come to Committee, but has today taken legal advice on whether this is necessary, as the work undertaken falls under permitted development rights.  Legal officers agree, and it will save time for everyone if these types of works are not referred to Planning Committee.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 6.25pm.