Cheltenham Borough Council
Cheltenham Borough Council

Hello, please sign in to your account. New customer? Creating a new account only takes moments.

find our main contact details and opening hours or find our location.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

296.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors Nelson and Collins.

 

297.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

There were none.

 

298.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Mason – visited all sites

Councillor Fisher – visited (i) Avenoke, Kidnappers Lane, and (ii) 66 Bouncers Lane

Councillor Savage – visited Ryeworth Inn, Ryeworth Road

 

 

299.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

 

300.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 136 KB

Minutes:

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

 

Before the start of the meeting, the Chair thanked Jacky Fletcher for her many years of hard work on Planning Committee and her valuable contribution, including acting as Vice-Chair.  He welcomed the new Vice-Chair, Councillor Fisher.

 

He also welcomed the new Planning Committee Members – Councillors Collins, Hobley, Oliver, McCloskey and Wilkinson – and two new planning officers, Claire Donnelly and Gary Dickens. 

 

The legal officer, Nick Jonathan, explained the voting procedure for the benefit of new members:  the first thing to remember is that the officer recommendation is taken as the motion (as set out in Rule 8 of the Constitution), unless there is a procedural motion, such as a move to defer, which takes priority. 

CBC does not require seconders for motions, either procedural or substantial.  When it comes to the vote, abstentions can be taken, but Members are requested to raise their hands high to make their voting preference very clear. 

 

301.

Planning/Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent/Advertisement Applications, Applications for Lawful Development Certificate and Tree related applications – see Main Schedule

302.

16/00166/FUL Ryeworth Inn, 60 Ryeworth Road pdf icon PDF 305 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00166/FUL

Location:

Ryeworth Inn, Ryeworth Road

Proposal:

Alterations and conversion of existing public house (part) to form a single dwelling and erection of two new dwellings

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

12

Update Report:

Additional representations

 

LW introduced the application as above, explaining that the Ryeworth Inn is registered as a community asset, and in accordance with requirements, CAMRA and local interest groups were notified of the application, to allow any potential bidders to come forward.  No interest was expressed within the statutory six weeks, and the application has proceeded accordingly.  Officers consider the scheme acceptable, there are no highway or amenity issues, and the recommendation is therefore to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones agent, in support

Is speaking as planning consultant representing the applicant.  This is an application for full planning permission for the alteration and conversion of the former pub, plus two additional dwellings in the car park.  Officers want balance, and have recommended that the application be permitted. Of the 16 public comments, only ten were in objection, primarily concerned with increased traffic and parking issues, with only six referring to the loss of the public house.  The proposal has had a number of revisions, with careful consideration of neighbours’ comments being taken into account, and as a result officers are supportive of the scheme.  Regarding the loss of the public house, this had been registered as an asset of community value, which places certain obligations on the property owners; in compliance with this, the owners have notified the parish council and  local interest groups, allowing them the opportunity to bid for the pub.  No interest has been shown.  To compare this proposal with the recent application at The Maple Leaf in Hewlett Road is wrong, as there were 70 letters of rep and major local objection to the loss of that community asset.  It is a fact that not all public houses can survive, and this scheme to use the former pub site will provide much needed housing.  Urges Members to support the officer recommendation.

 

 

 

Member debate:

LS:  this is a challenging application, and it is with a sense of sadness that we contemplate another proposal to turn a pub into housing; is aware of several other pubs across town that are threatened with closure or conversion, and CAMRA has estimated that across the country, 27 pubs a week are closing.  The government acknowledges the formative role of pubs in the community, in Paragraph 69 of the NPPF, stating that planning policies and decisions should bring together those who work, live and play in an area.  The Ryeworth Inn has always been an asset to the people of Ham, Ryeworth Road and the surrounding areas, providing a focal point and giving a sense of community.  The officer report refers to the recent decision at The Maple Leaf/Fiery Angel in Hewlett Road, which the community had rightly created as an asset of value, but differentiates  ...  view the full minutes text for item 302.

303.

16/00317/FUL 33 Kingsmead Avenue pdf icon PDF 63 KB

Minutes:

Application Number:

16/00317/FUL

Location:

33 Kingsmead Avenue Cheltenham Gloucestershire

 

 

DEFERRED

 

 

304.

16/00389/FUL 66 Bouncers Lane pdf icon PDF 155 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00389/FUL

Location:

66 Bouncers Lane, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of two detached dwellings

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

Officer comments

 

KH left the Council Chamber at the start of this debate

 

EP introduced the scheme as above, with access to Bouncers Lane by way of a driveway to the left of the site, adjacent to Newland Court.  The scheme has garages and parking to the front, and is at Committee at the request of the parish council.  It complies with all relevant policies, and the recommendation is therefore to approve, subject to conditions.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Wilce, neighbour, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of his daughter and son-in-law, in objection to the development of two dwellings in the rear garden of 66 Bouncers Lane, which will have a detrimental impact on areas of their garden.  At 2.5 of the Design and Access Statement, the applicant states that a precedent for this type of development has been set at Newland Court, but this is not comparable, as an unsightly factory was demolished to make way for that.  There is no precedent for rear garden development, and this scheme will cause harm to local amenity and fundamentally change the nature of this residential area.  The planning officer has addressed and amended the issue his daughter had with overlooking from the side windows, but not the front windows which are looking towards her garden and home.  With reference to points 3 and 15 of the application, which states that no preparatory work has been undertaken, in fact a 50-year-old oak tree has been felled, and other considerable tree surgery in the rear garden gives the impression that approval has already been given.  Protocol 1 Article 1 of the Human Rights Act allows people the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and home; here, the shared driveway will cause noise and disturbance in his daughter’s garden.  Urges Councillors to reject the scheme. 

 

 

Member debate:

CH:  the question has been raised about this proposal looking like back garden development.  This is important, as it would set a precedent – the house next door mirrors this one, and so on along the road.  Has been on Committee when it has approved a scheme for garden development, a whole street has then gone the same way, and the Committee wrings its hands and says ‘if only we hadn’t allowed the first one…’.  That consideration makes this a difficult scheme to judge.  The shared drive is not good, and it is very likely that other houses in the road will follow suit and thus spoil the character of the area.  Newlands Court was a very different proposal – a brownfield site, formerly a factory.  Would like officers to explore the issue more than they have done so far.

 

AL:  agrees with CH:  Newlands was built on a former industrial site, this proposal is for back garden development – they cannot be compared.  The SPD documents suggests  ...  view the full minutes text for item 304.

305.

16/00499/FUL Lypiatt Lodge, Lypiatt Road pdf icon PDF 206 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00499/FUL & LBC

Location:

Lypiatt Lodge, Lypiatt Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

16/00499/FUL: Part two storey, part single storey rear extension to form new dining room on the ground floor with extended kitchen over (revised scheme)

 

16/00499/LBC:  Part two storey, part single storey rear extension to form new dining room on the ground floor with extended kitchen over together with internal refurbishment works and upgrading (revised scheme)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced this application for planning permission and listed building consent as above.  The recommendation is to refuse, essentially because officers feel the building has already seen enough development.  It is listed, and any further extensions will be harmful.  Obviously officers have had to weigh this against the benefits to the care home but on balance, feel that the harm outweighs the benefits, hence the recommendation to refuse. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Jones, applicant, in support

Is director of the company which bought the building in 2015, in a dilapidated state and with a bad reputation, and has since spent a lot of money bringing the building back to its former glory; it is still run as a nursing home, offering a much-needed service in the community but lacking the ability to maximise its potential.  With the backing of GPs and specialists, hopes to offer accommodation for elderly individuals with complex needs.  To do this, an enlarge sitting room on the lower ground floor and extended kitchen on the floor above are needed, adding no more that 3% to the total floor area, complementing the work being done in the garden and elsewhere in the building.  It will change the way the building functions and vastly improve the lives of current and future residents, with larger, more accessible common areas and a landscaped garden accessed from the new sitting room.  The small addition to the building replaces an unsightly corner supported by a corroded metal pillar, dating from the 1990s.  There is precedent in Lypiatt Road for more development than is being proposed here, and the proposal is sympathetic to the rest of the building.  It will not impact on neighbouring properties – not overlooking windows and a large boundary wall on the Tivoli side. There are no highways issues; environment health officers have raised the question of cooking emissions, which the architect can address with careful design; trees officers are concerned about the beech tree and a method of construction sympathetic to its roots will be used.  There are been two letters of support from relatives of current residents.  To conclude, the proposal is roughly 35 sq metres sympathetic to the building design, doesn’t impact on neighbours, will enrich the lives of residents and enhance the enjoyment of the are and offer a vital service to the community.

 

 

Member debate:

SW: officers have done a good job of balancing the considerations here, putting weight on both sides, and ultimately decided one way.  Looking at the back of the building,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 305.

306.

16/00537/FUL Avenoke, Kidnappers Lane pdf icon PDF 185 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00537/FUL

Location:

Avenoke, Kidnappers Lane, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Proposed two storey extension to front and rear with roof alterations and front porch - revised scheme 16/00156/FUL

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

4  + petition

Update Report:

None

 

GD introduced the application as above, recommended for refusal in respect of its harmful impact on the visual amenity of the locality and character of the area.  It is at Committee at the request of former Councillor Chard.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Day, applicant, in support

Has applied to improve his home, which is situated in an area with no planning restrictions, and where all the properties have been developed in different ways.  It is a family home for his own family and foster children, and the proposal has been designed in partnership with the community, from where there have been no objections.  Officers have two concerns:  firstly that the profile will dominate the street scene, but the proposed dwelling will be exactly the same depth and width as the original.  Houses along the road have higher rooflines, so how can this be said to dominate?  Is passionate about this proposal and getting approval, and has agreed to a number of revisions which have resulted in lost roof space and an additional bedroom for his own children and foster children.  The other concern is the roof tiles; would like to use grey slate, as the previously used red/brown tiles weather badly.  This has full support from the parish council, local councillors, and 100% of residents who have the same frustrations with their roofing materials.  The application complies with the planning regulations in policy CP7.  With the approval of the parish council, former Councillor Chard, the current ward councillor, an unprecedented level of support from neighbours and no objections, asks that Members support the scheme, with the full confidence of the community.

 

Andrew Chard, in support

Cannot say much more than this.  The application has the full support of neighbours – Planning Committee is more used to hearing objection s from neighbours – and will allow Mr and Mrs Day to develop their home without making any difference to the street scene.  The Parish Council is happy with it, so asks Planning Committee to back Mr Day and allow him to develop his home for his wife, two children and foster children.

 

 

Member debate:

HM:  the refusal reason states that the development would result in harmful impact and dominate the street scene, not in keeping with local policies which say that the character and scale of the area should be respected.  However, the NPPF says different, at Paragraph 63 encouraging outstanding and innovative design, and at Paragraph 65 that incompatibility with the existing townscape is OK if mitigated by good design.  This design is innovative.  The houses were all originally bungalows but have all had various works done to them over the years, with no particular standard apart from the height and width which has been maintained here.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 306.

307.

16/00549/FUL 21 Sedgewick Gardens pdf icon PDF 105 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

 

 

Application Number:

16/00549/FUL

Location:

21 Sedgewick Gardens, Up Hatherley, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Single storey and two storey extension to rear, first floor and gable roof extension to front and side

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

GD introduced the application as above, a revised scheme on a previously approved one.  This enlarges the first floor, adds two more Velux windows, changes the patio door on the rear elevation changes the first floor window on the rear elevation, increasing the height and eaves height by 20cm.  It is at Committee as request on Councillor Whyborn.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Fawke, neighbour, in objection

Less than a year ago, a planning officer made a decision on the rear upstairs windows on the proposed extension, and cannot comprehend how a new planning officer has made a U-turn on that decision.  Last year, instead of larger three-paned windows, the officer approved two double-paned windows.  At a loss to understand how the owner can reapply within a year and again request larger three-paned windows previously denied.  The owner is trying to push the boundaries; it is unfair and should not be allowed, and will impact even more on privacy and overlooking at her own property.  Has a patio window and small window in her lounge but would be able to see much more – as the neighbours will do – if it was the same size as what next door is proposing. The house will be doubled in size, nearer to the boundary, with view into her teenage daughter’s bedroom, garden and lounge.  Is requesting that the windows remain as previously approved, particularly as the owner already has so much window space approved, not in keeping with the surrounding houses.  There seems to be conflicting decision making by the council – when Manor Farm was built a few years ago, the council required No. 10 Manor Farm Drive to block its back window, just under 21m from 21 Sedgewick Gardens and 11 The Hawthorns, yet her property is only 7m from No 21, and at a 90 degree angle so easily overlooked.  Has lived at her property for 28 years, while the owner of No 21 has rented his home out for the majority of that time.  Did not object to the extension, but if this current application is permitted, it will set a precedent.  Is simply asking that the council stands by its original planning decision.

 

Councillor McKinlay, in objection

All the points made by Mrs Fawke are correct, and there are a number of key issues here.  There is already an approved planning permission fort this site, the result of considerable negotiation, and the similar application before us today is not acceptable.  It gives very mixed messages that less than a year ago this proposal was not considered acceptable, yet today it is.  Paragraph 1.4 of the report update lists the changes to the previous scheme – these are not individually significant, but clearly combine to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 307.

308.

16/00728/LBC Cenotaph, Promenade pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

16/00728/LBC

Location:

Cenotaph, Promenade, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Insertion of a narrow stainless steel flashing above inscription panels

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Grant - Ratify by National Casework Unit

Committee Decision:

Ratify by National Casework Unit

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced this application as above, which aims to protect the carved lettering, which is the reason why the memorial exists.  It is a CBC application, and has been endorsed by Historic England. The recommendation is listed as ‘Grant’ but this should be ‘Ratify by National Casework Unit’.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

None.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to ratify by National Casework Unit

15 in support – unanimous

RATIFY BY NATIONAL CASEWORK UNIT

309.

16/00854/CONF Thorncliffe Flats, Lansdown Road pdf icon PDF 142 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00854/CONF

Location:

Thorncliffe Flats, Lansdown Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order no 739 (pine tree)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Order is Confirmed

Committee Decision:

Order is Confirmed

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

CC explained that this application has come out of an earlier application to fell the tree.  As it is situated in a conservation area, officers tried to negotiate, ultimately putting a TPO on the tree.  The flat owners objected and CC has brought it to Planning Committee for an airing and to allow Members to make the final decision. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Worsley, on behalf of residents of Thorncliffe, in objection

Originally submitted an application to remove the tree which residents feel has become dangerous and unsuitable, and to replace it with two new more suitable trees.  It was a democratic and unanimous decision by all the flat owners.  Lansdown Road is a busy road and the flats have large frontage and attractive borders.  The tree is taller than the five-storey building, it bends in the wind giving rise to health and safety concerns, and causes distress to elderly residents on the upper floors, who are worried that it could fall and cause damage or injury.  In addition, birds roost in the overhanging branches, making a mess which, combined with the fallen pine needles on the sloping surface, cause a significant slip and trip hazard for residents.  The TPO was issued based on a TEMPO report which is very subjective; there is some discrepancy here and residents dispute the scoring.  What exactly does high amenity value mean?  Residents are not seeking to damage the area, but to enhance it, improve safety, and alleviate their worries and fears.

 

 

Member debate:

BF:  the tree doesn’t appear to be dangerous; can CC confirm if it is?  This tree is a community asset, can be seen by many people from a distance as part of a long view of Lansdown Road, and is a beautiful tree, which predates the flats.  As long as it is safe, it is making a positive contribution to the street scene.

 

SW:  endorses this view.  How often do tall trees grow bolt upright?  Not very many.  Has seen older trees than this which list even more but remain safe.  As for bird fouling, knows the problem from his own garden, but that’s life -  we’re not going to get rid of all trees and birds and live in a concrete only city.  As long as the tree is safe, it should be retained.

 

KS:  agrees with the residents.  Wouldn’t like to live in the shadow of this tree leaning towards her flat.  Has tried to love it, but can’t – it’s just not that attractive – and cannot comment on its score for amenity value as she is no expert.  Would not have a problem with the tree being removed and new ones planted.  There are other trees in the area for people and birds to enjoy.  Is happy to vote  ...  view the full minutes text for item 309.

310.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.