Agenda and minutes

Councillor Sudbury.

16/00905/FUL Pipers Wold, 22 Greatfield Drive

Councillor Thornton – knows the applicant – will abstain from the vote.

16/00905/FUL Pipers Wold, 22 Greatfield Drive

Councillor Baker

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th May 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

MJC introduced the application as above, explaining that officers are prepared to accept the flexibility of use to mimic the other uses on the surrounding industrial/retail estate.  The application is at Committee due to parish council objections and at the request of Councillor Fisher.  The recommendation is to permit

Public Speaking:

Mr Alan McCabrey, agent, in support

Is speaking for Mason Owen, the managing agents for the applicants. Rex Developments is a family-owned business, which has specialised in business parks since 1999, always maintaining a good relationship with their tenants and neighbouring landowners.  They acquired this site from RBS in 2014, following a previous outline planning application which was refused, predominantly on car parking grounds.  Rex Developments have tackled the issue, and to date have demolished the old and outdated warehouse to the rear of the gym; relocated car parking for the gym to provide 35 further spaces; renegotiated the least for Topps Tiles for a longer term, guaranteeing jobs for a long time to come; entered into a legal agreement with Simply Gym to vary the lease giving the ability to move car parking spaces under that lease; added white lines and dedicated walkways, in addition to lighting for Topps Tiles and Simply Gym.  All this work has been carried out for the tenants, and further discussions with Simply Gym are ongoing.  A legally binding agreement with Halfords will be followed by completion of the works, providing new life for a redundant site,  a number of new jobs, and making redevelopment of this site better for customers, tenants and Cheltenham as a whole.

Member debate:

BF:  has no objection to this site being developed but is concerned about the loss of the informal walkway.  If it goes, people will have to cross Swindon Road, Kingsditch Lane, Runnings Road and Wymans Lane – it is one of the busiest junctions in Cheltenham, currently with no pedestrian lights or crossings, although there are islands in the middle for some of them.  The Vibixa site on the opposite corner will be redeveloped at some point, adding to the problem.  Would like to see some additional conditions.  First, that all staff parking must be on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

CS introduced the application as above, pointing out a small error in the introduction to the officer report – it refers to the existing bungalow as semi-detached whereas in fact it is detached.  A previous application for similar development was withdrawn and has been reworked.  The application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Baker, and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Mark Le Grand, applicant, in support

Most points are covered in the officer’s report, but will reiterate the key ones here.  During the design process, specific care was taken to ensure the size, scale and bulk of the final design is sympathetic to the surrounding area, working closely with the planning officer to ensure her very detailed and constructive advice was interpreted correctly  Also liaised with neighbours and local residents prior to submission, resulting in the traditional design of the dwellings which fits well in the street scene.  The building has been positioned and designed to have no impact on to shadow and light to the surrounding properties. As a result of working closely with the planning department, the recommendation is to permit, there have only been two objections from local residents and none from the council’s advisers and consultees.  Most importantly, the proposed scheme fully complies with all relevant sections of the Local Plan, the SPD guidance and the NPPF.  Feels strongly that the proposed scheme is suitable for the site and hopes Members will approve.

Member debate:

PB:  Members may be wondering why he asked for this application to be referred to Planning Committee.  Had requested that the previous scheme come to Committee, but this was withdrawn.  Now would like to congratulate CS and the applicant for coming forward with this current scheme.  They have worked hard together, and the resulting proposal is a credit to officers which he is happy to support.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

CS described the application as above, which relates to land to the front of 28 Gwernant Road, part of the soft landscaping owned by CBC.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

MC:  looked at the site on Planning View and has no issues with this sensible scheme, which obviously needs to be on the left hand side of the site.  Is a bit concerned that this part of the grass verge has been abused by home-owners or other people. If permission is given for No 28, this could set a precedent, and  notes that the area below is  planted with trees which should be protected. 

MJC in response:

-       officers wouldn’t necessarily look so keenly on other properties in the road coming forward with similar proposals, as they would need to drive their cars across a much wider verge. 

BF:  has no problem with this; it will mean fewer cars on the road which is on a bus route and should therefore be applauded.  Other people may think it’s a good idea and do the same; this is the way to go.  These houses were built when cars were much narrower; buses struggle to get through between parked cars.  A similar situation exists on Warden Hill Road.  If people want to do it, they should be encouraged.

CH:  is looking on Google Earth and can see how people have had to get across the grass verge.  Has similar issues in Priors Road in Oakley; the area was originally set out with nice green open spaces, but as parking has become more of an issue, these have been informally used for cars.  It is better to have the situation managed, and would suggest that if No. 26 wants to do the same, the access for No 28 should be doubled, with just one drop kerb.  If all the houses want it, this should be managed all together, to maintain some sort of green space.  This principle could be used elsewhere in the town, with more imaginative ways of achieving access looked at, softening the frontages with drives going across.  Anything that removes cars from the roadside is a good thing. 

PT:  as far as she knows, buses don’t use this part of Gwernant Road – the D bus goes along Caernarvon and Warden Hill Roads.  Notes that No. 26 already has tarmac put down which marries quite nicely with No. 28.  Her only concern is that residents use the wider part of the grass verge in the summer for a trampoline for the children; it is a well-used community space, and has three trees on it.  Should the trees be TPO’d to protect the space?

CS, in response:

-       officers recognise the importance of green space to housing developments in this area, but have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

MJC explained that this application was due to be heard last month, but was deferred following Planning View when officers and Members noticed that a neighbouring driveway has been installed without planning permission.  The officer update explains the background of this.  The planning application at 33 Kingsmead Avenue is retrospective;  the neighbours were issued with a Certificate of Lawful Development for their drop kerb and permeable hardstanding to the front of their property, and told that they would need planning permission to replace the existing grass verge with hardstanding.  No application was received, despite the work being done.  Officers  feel  this is regrettable, but acknowledge that the driveway is compatible in its context, as Members saw on site.  There is also a driveway at No. 37, which has been there for a  number of years and therefore has deemed planning permission.  The recommendation is to permit. 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

SW:  has no real arguments with what is being requested here, but has concerns that retrospective applications are required for the neighbouring works - this land is owned by CBH.  We need to send note to CBH , saying it is not acceptable that they are required to put in retrospective applications - they should do so on Day One.

GB:  MJC will point out the need to be more effective here; TC will write to CBH to make sure the message is heard and understood.

CH:  as with the previous application, the drawings don’t include the driveways which have been added, and it would be helpful to see them drawn in, even unofficially.  Following on from his earlier comments, wonders whether, in cases where cars will have to be driven over green space, some kind of concrete blocks with grass growing through could be installed, for a softer overall effect which would look better.  Those kind of styles can be put in more easily – need to look at how to do at Planning and Liaison Member Working Group.

PT:  are CBH the real criminals here?  Residents are putting the driveways in themselves, CBH doesn’t have the capacity to visit all their sites very often.  They should not be too criticised for it.

HM:  saw that the adjacent property had a newly-installed driveway over the grass verge; have asked that the residents apply for retrospective planning permission, but hopes that enforcement action will be taken if not.  It is not even-handed if one neighbour has paid for planning permission while the one next door gets away with it scot free.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

CH advised Members that an email from the ward councillor has been received, with no objection to the proposal itself, but in view of the proximity of the site to the River Chelt, requesting that materials used should be suitable to ensure that there will be no increased run-off to the river.  The application relates to a gravelled area with Tesco to the north, and the River Chelt to the south, in a residential and commercial area.  Up to 41 car parking spaces are proposed, with no physical work to the site.  The additional spaces are required for an engineering company on Central Way which is expanding.  The application has been submitted by CBC, and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

PT:  concerned that some bunding towards the entrance to the site will be lost.  This will be a shame, as although it is somewhat overgrown with weeds and so on, it is more attractive than tarmac.

CH, in response:

-       the loss of the bunding is the result of a condition recommended by Gloucestershire Highways, requiring set backs to ensure visibility splays and to ensure that they are not obscured in the future.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application as above.  It is a retrospective application and has been used as an eight-bed HMO for seven years.  This application was not called to Committee, but in light of the application at No. 2 Courtenay Street being so (now deferred), officers felt the two should be considered together.  The recommendation is to grant permission.  Officers appreciate that there is a bigger concern about the number of HMOs in St Paul’s, but feel that the issues cannot be resolved by one application – there is a much wider piece of work to be done.  This application is to allow two extra people in one house.

Public Speaking:

Ms Tess Beck, local resident and representing St Paul’s Residents Association, in objection

It’s a shame that Cheltenham students are expected to live in more crowded conditions than students in neighbouring university cities, and that the space here described as adequate by the planning officer would not be considered adequate elsewhere.  Rooms have been subdivided, and there remains just one combined living room/kitchen as the only shared space.  If CBC introduces additional licensing in the future as has been discussed, this property would not be considered big enough for eight people; such overcrowding is not beneficial to the tenants.  More students means more noise disturbance, and with limited communal space indoors, students are more likely to socialise outside, often late at night, with noise travelling a long way and disturbing a lot of people.  The planning officer notes that there have been no complaints to Environmental Health about the noise from this building but as one of several properties on Courtenay Street and Marle Hill Parade which backs on to it, it isn’t always possible to identify where noise comes from.  Noise complaints about student houses are usually reported to the University rather than Environmental Health, as it is more responsive in dealing with complaints.

There are 19 student HMOs in Courtenay Street, this being the most densely occupied, with the others 5-6-way lets.  This makes up over 40% of the properties, creating a significant community imbalance, contrary to CBC’s corporate strategy for strong and healthy communities.   The conservation area character assessment acknowledges that although students bring vibrancy to an area, there is a fine line between the beneficial nature of student activity and the nuisance caused by the intense nature of the use.  By having eight rather than six students, this application has crossed that line. 

Residents are concerned that the property has been operating as a licensed HMO for seven years without planning permission, which suggests lack of communication between departments at the council.  It is  not only council officers who should take the blame for this; the applicant owns and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6g

There were none.