Agenda and minutes

Councillors Sudbury, McCloskey and Oliver.

16/00969/FUL Garage Blocks, Kingsmead Avenue

16/00971/FUL Land at Newton Road

16/00972/FUL 47 Beaufort Road

Councillors Jeffries – is cabinet member with responsibility for Cheltenham Borough Homes (the applicant) – will leave the Chamber during these items.

16/00797/COU 2 Courtenay Street,

16/000911/COU 43 Courtenay Street

16/00989/FUL 13 Merlin Way

Councillor Nelson

16/00972/FUL 47 Beaufort Road

Councillor Savage

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 29^th June 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction:

Page 12

CH: …It is helpful that CBC has given a license for this HMO to operate with eight residents, as Members will be able to see the reasons given which will help…

to be replaced with:

CH: …It would be helpful if Licensing was to liaise with Planning when giving a license for an HMO to operate with eight tenants, as Members will be able to see the reasons given which will help…

EP introduced the application as above, reminding Members that it was deferred from last month’s meeting; the applicant has now withdrawn the dormer window element of the application, which will now be dealt with separately.  The additional rooms are created by using the basement and sub-dividing a first floor bedroom.  A six-bedroom HMO does not require planning permission; it is the seventh bedroom that triggers this application.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Walklett, and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Norvill, applicant, in support

Purchased the property in March this year.  It has always been an HMO, previously let in an unlicensed, unfit and hazardous condition, with dangerous boiler, condemned electrics, and serious damp problems.  Intends to refurbish the property to a high standard, making it a safe and properly managed HMO.  Has an excellent relationship with the council’s housing standards officers, having dealt with them for over ten years; they have visited the property and support the accommodation. The application is for change of use from a six-bedroomed to a seven-bedroomed HMO; realises that consent is not needed for six bedrooms, but this house can easily accommodate seven people, with a spacious lounge, large separate kitchen with plenty of units and worktop, two shower rooms, three toilets, and all bedrooms above minimum size set by housing standards.   Is an experienced landlord, managing his properties closely himself and living only five minutes from the property, so can ensure tenants have a hassle-free stay in return for which he expects them to look after the property and respect the neighbours and local community; makes regular visits to ensure this is the case, with parents acting as guarantors for student tenants.  Supports community activities and has always had good relationships with neighbours of his properties; is regularly complimented on how well his properties are managed and already knows the neighbours of 2 Courtenay Street who have no objection to this COU.  The University of Gloucestershire is expanding and an asset to the town; first-year students will be looking for good-quality second and third year accommodation, which is currently in short supply, and could become a serious issue for the University – last year, some students were forced to take up emergency accommodation due to the lack of private housing. His investment in this property will help keep this part of Cheltenham respectable and presentable, where many properties have become run-down and neglected in the past.

Member debate:

DS:  on Planning View, viewed the top bedroom and was concerned about the ceiling height at the apex; it may comply with standards, but is too low for an above-average height person.  Also remains concerned about how residents would get out in an emergency, particularly from the attic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

EP introduced the application, which was deferred at last month’s Committee to allow Members the opportunity to do a full site visit, to include the inside of the house.  It has been operating as an 8-bedroomed HMO for seven years, with a license but without planning permission.  Officer recommendation is to permit.  It is at Committee because officers consider it comparable with the application at No. 2 Courtenay Street.

Public Speaking:

Mr Cooley, applicant, in support

Speaks as the owner and applicant for 43 Courtenay Street, which complies with all HMO requirements, has been relicensed three times, complies over and above with fire regulations and with University of Gloucestershire guidelines, and is on the university’s list of accredited accommodation, as safe, well-maintained and affordable property, in a safe environment.  Many students return for a second year, and there have been no complaints.  The planning department’s recommendation of refusal relates to the wider issue of the number of HMOs in the street, but has personally been managing houses for ten years, has much experience and has made positive changes, with improved storage, parking and rubbish disposal.  Students in the area add to the rich mixed and vibrant community, and have positive relations with the community, together with landlord owners.   Retrospective planning permission was granted earlier this year for a seven-bedroomed HMO in Albion Street; his application is not looking to increase the number but to regularise the HMO that has been in place for seven years, and continue to provide good quality, well-managed and affordable student accommodation.

Member debate:

SW:  was horrified when he saw the proposed numbers and front of the house last month, but was actually quite pleased when he looked inside the house on Planning View this month – apart from one of the rooms on the ground floor.  Does not have too many concerns now, although the basement rooms, even with the windows wide open, still had a damp smell.  Was struck that the house is being well-managed, but although students will put up with a lot, an eye needs to be kept on this. 

MC:  it was very useful to look at the inside of the house – was impressed by the well-maintained and mainly acceptable accommodation.  Remains concerned  with the smallest room, which seems only to be compliant with standards by having cupboard space elsewhere in the house – if this makes it compliant, it is slightly ridiculous. 

CN:  his previous comments on 2 Courtenay Street still apply with reference to the Cheltenham Plan.  Is bemused that the property has not had planning permission yet has been licensed for seven years; would have thought that if the landlord has 17 properties, he would have known about the need for planning permission.  Where does this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

RCH introduced the application as above, adding that the site is in the AONB, at Committee because the applicant and proposer is CBC.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB:  this is his patch, and YouTube videos of recent heavy rainfall show Sandy Lane like a river, with water coming down from the golf course and the scarp.  This scheme will be a real benefit, protecting the homes and gardens of residents.  Would like to thank the officers involved, as this has taken a lot of officer time, particularly the second scheme for drainage.  It will be a real improvement, and looks forward to the Lilley Brook Golf site scheme later this year.

PJ:  also supports the application – any mitigation of flood water is good.   Notes that the report refers to planning for a 1-in-100 year flood event, plus 10%, as recommended by the Environment Agency, but we have had two 1-in-100 year events quite close together.  Can officers give some clarity?

BF:  this is a reasonable scheme, but as some residents have commented, we should remember that this is only a way of deflecting the water – it will go elsewhere and could cause further problems.  The YouTube video is certainly startling and frightening.  There was concern that the bund at Cox’s Meadow was not doing its job properly and water was leeching through; the same could happen with this scheme, though the Environment Agency has looked at it, so hopefully it will work properly.

MC:  anything to prevent flooding is a good thing.  Could not have determined this application without going on Planning View, and hopes it will do what it has to do.  Notes that CBC is the proposer and applicant; is CBC paying for the work to be carried out?  This needs to be public and clear.

CN:  supports anything which will help stop flooding in Cheltenham, so in principle, it is a big yes for this scheme.  Has heard that local residents were affected by a flash flood last month, and following the development of 205 Leckhampton Road in his ward, water rushes off the hill, mitigation measures don’t work, and the water affects properties in Collum End Rise.  Similarly at Brizen Lane – the TBC development – removal of top soil at the site has caused local flooding.  These are just two examples off  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

MP introduced the application as above, for planning permission and listed building consent.  It was deferred in May to allow further discussions on design, size, and additional information on the tree protection.  A tree survey has been produced, together with a management statement, and a revised plan which omits the paving near the tree, making the scheme broadly acceptable from a tree perspective.  However, the footprint, massing and size of the proposal has not been reduced, and the recommendation therefore remains to refuse. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

MC:  has now visited this property twice and can understand what the applicant is trying to achieve, but does not think this scheme is acceptable.  The applicant has received advice from planning officers but not taken this on board.  Will not support this application.

KH:  shares MC’s reservations.  Visited the site on Planning View;  has sympathy with the current use and what the applicant is trying to achieve, and is therefore sad not to be supporting it, but is trying to do the right thing and is not convinced that this is it.  Used to live opposite the site, which adds to the amenity of the locale – a very attractive building with an important story to tell, as reflected by its listed status.  The existing building tells its story better than it will with the proposed changes in place.  We have a special duty to care for buildings of this kind, with significant histories, and the proposal doesn’t take account of this.  It is disappointing and regrettable that the applicant wasn’t able to bring forward a proposal which planning officers felt able to permit.

PB:  did the Architects Panel and Civic Society comment on the scheme?

CH:  supported the application last time.  Understands what Members have said, but looking at various buildings around town (including the Municipal Offices) the fronts often look fantastic but the backs don’t - historically, architects focussed on the fronts.  Did not go on site visit, but doesn’t think that what is being proposed is so bad, especially as what is currently there isn’t brilliant.  Understands that the design could be better but feels that providing space for the residents is more important.

PT:  is minded to support the application.  Can see what the applicant wants to do.  If the proposal was to stick a big chunk on the back of an untouched house that would be different, but so much has been done already, it’s difficult to see how this will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

EP introduced the application as above, for two pairs of semi-detached houses with parking and gardens on the 5-metre strip to the side of Rhodesia House.  The remainder of the site will be landscaped.  Officers consider it a good use of the site, and the recommendation is to permit.  It is at Committee because Cheltenham Borough Homes is the applicant.

Public Speaking:

Mr Gould, neighbour, in objection

Lives at No. 5 Kingsmead Avenue, and while having no particular objection to the building of new homes or use of this land – considers it a good addition – has concerns about the boundary treatment. On the western finger of the site, there is currently an 8-foot metal fence between the site and Rhodesia House, for good reason.  The plan is to replace this with a 6-foot close board which is not like for like, and gives rise to safety concerns.  In addition to this, has had issues with the whole process – Members will have seen his letter – which has been neither transparent or well managed.

Member debate:

SW:  the blue update is slightly confusing – what does ‘NMU’ stand for, and ‘best placed on the left’ would be better described as ‘north north-east of site’.  Other than that, is quite happy with the design.  It seems a reasonable number of properties for a plot this size and in a high-density area of the town.

BF:  supports the application - this piece of land has been empty for years.  Very much likes the green wall, which gives life to the area around.  We need this sort of housing in the town.

CH:  will support the proposal but has a couple of issues.  The Civic Society has described the scheme as ‘uninspired’.  There will be more garage sites coming through in the future, and we should try to get this issue addressed – maybe suggest to CBH that it discusses its proposals with the Civic Society to come up with more important designs?  This is really important – it’s currently easy to spot council houses, and although a simple design may be cheaper and easier to maintain, a discussion would be useful and help make the town look better.  The outside appearance is particularly disappointing as these houses are first class on the inside, built for life. 

Secondly, the issue of the fencing.  This is a major concern in Oakley – it’s like pulling teeth getting CBH to take residents’ concerns on board and make any changes.  Supports CBH and all it is doing but wishes it was better at discussing issues with its neighbours and tenants.  Realises this isn’t a planning reason to object.

GB:  TC has confirmed that she will speak to CBH about this.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

MP introduced this second CBH application for a three-storey building to create six dwellings, with eight car-parking spaces and bin storage.  The site is an unattractive panel of land, with underutilised sheds and bin storage, owned by the Council

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

CC:  this application is in Hesters Way ward,  but backs on to Elgar House in his own ward of St Mark’s. It is an imaginative use of space to provide much-needed accommodation, with no loss of amenity space as a result.  The previous speaker mentioned CBH’s lack of willingness to engage in public consultation, but would say it has made a good effort here, with a high level of consultation.  As ward councillor, would like to pass on grateful thanks on behalf of residents to CBH for its willingness to engage.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

EP introduced this third CBH scheme, which involves the demolition of a garage block.  The house has already been demolished for the safety of the road.  The proposed houses will follow the line of existing dwellings, with parking space and gardens, making good use of the site.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

LS:  this is an excellent proposal.  Knows the area well, and the garages here are in a poor state of repair.  It is the sort of brownfield site we should be developing.  His only concerned is the potential loss of parking – Beaufort Road is something of a rat run between London and Cirencester Road to Hewlett and Hales Road – but it is a good scheme and will therefore support it nonetheless.

CH:  would say the same re the design as previously, but the way in which CBH is developing the site is brilliant.

SW:  is glad to see parking spaces out in the open.  Not long ago, they were always stuck out of the way, which could lead to problems.  It is good that in all the CBH schemes tonight, parking has been to the front where residents can see and be seen. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MP introduced the application as above.  Members will remember a planning application for a similar scheme following demolition of Unit 3, in April 2015.  The proposed units will have a utilitarian appearance, similar to Unit 3, and the application is at committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, on account of neighbour concern about traffic and amenity.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Malvern, on behalf of neighbours

This has been an on-going and long-running planning issue for three years now.  Is not opposed to redevelopment of this tatty site, but for the fourth or fifth time of asking, neighbour responses to the various proposals reveal numerous objections and varied strong opposition.  This application added to the previous one is out of scale in comparison to the original buildings’ scale and height; it will be overpowering and oppressive in relation to the homes on Asquith Road, as Members will have noted on their site visit.  Neighbours will have no control over who will use the units; some tenants’ operations will clearly disturb the neighbours.  If the application is permitted, working time restrictions should be clearly in place in line with Environmental Health recommendations.  There was a special additional condition in the previous application to ensure that the large doors are open for deliveries only and at no other times.  Prospective tenants should be informed of this by the landowner before they sign the lease – this should be attached to the condition in the planning permission.  If approved, can the maximum height and footprint be recorded and published so that small-scale drawings cannot be misinterpreted? It would be appreciated if the planning department can write to neighbours setting out these final details and conditions for this and the previous application, to avoid any disagreement in the future about what has been permitted. 

Member debate:

PB:  KS would speak very passionately about this proposal if she was at Committee tonight, but it is difficult to see any reasons to refuse.  There was much debate about scale and opening hours with the last scheme, but we do need modern industrial units and this scheme tidies up an untidy site. The best thing we can do for residents is ensure there are sufficient conditions regarding the hours of use and add as many protections as possible.  It is important that residents make sure these are complied with  and keep in touch with the enforcement team, who will also do their best to ensure compliance.  If this can be guaranteed, will support the application.

GB:  there is an advisory note about the owner/type of business the site should be used for – can this be made into a condition?

PJ:  this is a tough one – the balance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

MP introduced the application to extend this modern detached bungalow with an asymmetric roof.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Bickerton.  Officers considered the revised scheme to be at odds with the locality and incongruous in the street scene, and the recommendation is therefore to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mr Brown, agent, in support

The applicant seeks to develop the property at his own cost with a full planning application, rather than the tile-hung full-length dormer design that would allow similar expansion under PD rights.   The vast majority of neighbours want to see this scheme implemented rather than that permitted under PD rights, and their feelings carry great weight in this proposal.  Design is always subjective, and the built form respects the character of the estate, the materials emulate those prevalent at the time of construction, and also represent a contemporary form will benefit from a first-floor addition - the simplest and most long-standing form of design.  The surrounding estate features another dwelling with an asymmetric roof, so the proposal would not be at odds with the immediate locality. Officers consider a first floor addition may be acceptable in some form. The proposal complements and respects the neighbourhood character; to say the proposal is at odds with the existing character of the building is a moot point as this could be altered under PD rights; but most importantly is carries support of the majority of neighbours, and therefore accords with the requirements of Local Plan Policy CP7.

Member debate:

CN:  as councillor for Leckhampton, knows the area well.  On first sight of the drawings, was in two minds about it; officers did not support it for design reasons – the height issue more than anything else – so wonders why the applicant has refused any further changes as proposed by officers.  Thinks the design is not too bad, and looks better than the dormer-type design that could be done under permitted development.  The first proposal was widely supported, this is mostly supported, and also has the backing of Councillor Bickerton. 

PJ:  actually quite likes the design.  Is there any other reason to go against the officer recommendation?

PT:  cannot support this application.  On Planning View, saw the site and felt that this proposal would destroy the whole look of the area.  Only by seeing it is it possible to understand.  The owner should not be allowed to mess around with the existing building to this extent.  In addition, mature trees would be lost to accommodate these plans, and that would be a great loss to the area.

SW:  is glad that officers are recommending refusal.  Doesn’t like the existing building -  a bungalow with bits built on the side, and now proposing further building on top.  It will look even more of a mess,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

CJC introduced the application as above, at Committee because Councillor Mason is the applicant.  The proposal is to fell three larch trees and crown-lift a horse chestnut.  The TPO applies to all the trees in Redgrove Park which were already there when the houses were built in 1986 – anything older that 30 years is automatically protected – and was a blanket order, whether or not these were appropriate garden trees or not.  The larch trees are not suitable garden species, and the occupant will be able to get more use from his garden if they are removed.  If Members wish, a condition can be included requiring more trees to be planted to replace those lost.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

SW:  has no real objection other than not liking to see trees removed.  Cannot argue with CC, but actually loves larch trees and thinks it would be better to remove the horse chestnut!  This is a wonderful garden and cannot see that these trees spoil the amenity of anyone but the applicant. 

PJ:  used to live in Redgrove Park and knows about the trees there.  Supports CC’s recommendation, and would like to see a condition for replacement trees included.

PB:  would the condition require the lost trees be replaced with the same species?  Is worried about setting a precedent here on the estate; there are a lot of trees like this on the estate. 

CH:  was going to make the same point.

PT:  over the years there have been occasional applications to take down TPO’d trees in Redgrove Park, but this hasn’t led to a huge rush of people removing them – there has always been a good reason for doing so.  Permission can always be refused if there isn’t a good reason.

CJC, in response:

-       we can condition whatever Members want – trees of appropriate size etc.  CC can continue discussions with Councillor Mason to narrow down the options;

-       it’s true there have been quite a few applications to fell trees in Redgrove Park; officers always try to retain the best, and to replace with more appropriate trees for rear gardens. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

There were none.