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

18.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor Lillywhite.

19.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

There were none.

20.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

16/01088/FUL Ryeworth Inn – Councillor Savage

 

21.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

22.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 318 KB

Minutes:

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

 

23.

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

24.

16/00243/FUL 259 Gloucester Road pdf icon PDF 161 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00243/FUL

Location:

259 Gloucester Road,Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of four dwellings on land adjacent 259 Gloucester Road Cheltenham

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

17

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced application for four dwellings in two buildings, one to the front of the site and one to the rear, advising Members that the application had been amended to include an additional parking space – there are now four. The application is before committee at the request of Councillors Coleman and Holliday due to the history of the site and the level of public interest.

 

Public speaking:

Mr Frank Cowen, agent, in support

This site has been the subject of considerable discussion since the refusal of planning permission in February 2014; a revised scheme was submitted as a pre-app, and the officer report was used as a design brief for the submission in February this year. No off-street parking was originally proposed and the pre-app report included guidance from Highways ‘that there would be no significant concerns’ in this regard. The proposal submitted in February included two parking spaces but following comments from the Architects’ Panel and Roman Road residents, the agents requested a deferral, even though the new case officer was content that it would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring houses. Taking account of the pre-app report and Architects Panel comments, the scheme has been completely redesigned and now incorporates one parking space for each of the four dwellings, a higher level of provision than currently exists in Roman Road. The applicant is mindful of the problem for residents caused by ‘rogue’ parking by people using the railway station, but this should not be a consideration here, rather a case for a resident parking scheme as in other congested parts of the town. None of the residents in the existing building have cars and the revised scheme provides four spaces; many objections relate to earlier submissions with just two parking spaces. The recommendation is to permit, and would respectfully suggest that objections on parking grounds be dismissed and the application permitted.

 

Cllr Holliday, ward councillor, in objection

Thanked members for the opportunity to speak, saying that local residents have made their concerns known through their representations. Development of the site may be a good thing but it needs careful thought in terms of parking and access arrangements. There are problems with parking in Roman Road by people using the railway station and this application will compound matters. Is staggered that there is no comment from the County Highways team given the perceived highway safety matters in relation to access and egress. The proposal would also impact unbearably on No. 2 Roman Road whose front door faces the access road. Finally, it was questioned how the delivery and service vehicles would access the site?

 

Member debate:

CH: asked for legal advice, having entered the chamber slightly late.

NJ, in response:

-          the decision lies with him, and whether he feels  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

16/00849/FUL 267 London Road pdf icon PDF 250 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00849/FUL

Location:

267 London Road, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Development of a new dwelling

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

4

Update Report:

Additional representation

 

EP introduced the application as above. Planning permission has already been granted for a dwelling on this site which is single-storey on to London Road and two-storey at the rear due to the change in levels. This application proposes an additional storey on top of this. The building has a contemporary flat roof design which officers consider appropriate in this context bearing in mind the constraints of the site and the setback position of the dwelling in the plot. The application is at Committee due to the objection from the parish council.

Public speaking:

Mr Everitt, agent,in support

Construction of the approved two-storey dwelling commenced earlier this year; the proposed new floor will sit above the approved scheme footprint and have no greater impact with regards flooding than the consented scheme, which was accepted by the Environment Agency. There is a mains drain running through the site which has informed the lower ground floor and ground floor plan form, and a build-over agreement has been reached with Severn Trent for the proposed first floor. The initial design responded to the opportunities and constraints of the site and was later refined to address the initial comments made by the Local Authority, Parish Council and the Architects Panel. To be subservient within the street scene, the property has been set back from the pavement, with eaves level below that of the adjoining properties and the existing red brick boundary wall retained so only the proposed first floor will be visible from London Road. As a simple built form with a flat roof,  the elevation facing London Road has a similar ratio of glazing to solid wall as adjacent buildings. His company has completed many infill projects within Cheltenham -  contemporary dwellings within traditional/historic street scenes  - a number of which have received Civic Society awards. The Civic Society considers this scheme an attractive way of infilling the gap between the two existing houses. The width of the proposed first floor has been reduced to ensure a gap of 3 to 4 meters between the new dwelling and the properties on either side, and the elevations refined to provide a simpler form and cleaner lines. By setting the proposal back from the building line and ensuring the gaps to either side, the current break within the street scene can still be clearly read.  Materials used will reflect those within the locality, with the ground floor walls finished in red brick and the first floor rendered. The officer recommendation is to approve;  hopes that members will also support this subtle and considered scheme.

 

Member debate:

JP: Visited the site on planning view and feels that congratulations are in order to the developer and architect for a quality design on a site with frightening terrain. Aware of the views raised by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

16/01088/FUL Ryeworth Inn, Ryeworth Road pdf icon PDF 250 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01088/FUL

Location:

Ryeworth Inn, Ryeworth Road, Charlton Kings

Proposal:

Redevelopment of former public house comprising conversion of existing building (part) to form single dwelling, and erection of two new dwellings.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

13

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application as above, identical to the previous application which was refused on policy RC1 and the building being an Asset of Community Value. This situation has changed and the pub is no longer community asset list bringing with it important fall-back positions which were less relevant when considering the previous scheme.

Public speaking

Mr Rowles, neighbour, in objection

Speaking as owner of 7 Hambrook Street which backs onto the application site, is concerned about the  loss of privacy, particularly from the first floor window of Plot 3. This window only achieves a distance of 19m between facing windows and 9m to the sites boundary - less than the 10.5 stated in the Local Plan. All other properties in close proximity to the application site meet these distances.

 

David Jones, agent, in support

This application seeks full planning permission for alterations and conversion of existing public house to form a single dwelling and erection of two new dwellings. Officers having weighed the planning balance recommend  that the application be permitted. The proposal generated 18 public comments, summarised as follows: traffic impacts and parking; overlooking and loss of privacy; number, height and appearance of new dwellings; impact upon TPO Oak tree; loss of public house. Those in support commented that a residential development would result in less noise and disturbance to local residents than a pub. Neither the highways authority or tree officers raise any objection. An identical scheme was refused at the May committee because the building was listed as an Asset of Community Value and the scheme contravened Local Plan Policy RC1; an appeal has been lodged to the Planning. In the intervening period the property has been removed from the asset of community value list, and details of decided appeals have been submitted which demonstrate RC1 does not prohibit the redevelopment of public houses, as confirmed by the officer report. Furthermore, the property could now be demolished or converted to a shop or office without planning permission.  Those writing on behalf of CAMRA allege that the property was not on the market, but ACV regulations require that any community group simply make an expression of interest in bidding for the property within the initial six-week moratorium period, with a further six months to formulate a bid. No such expression of interest was forthcoming and thus quite rightly the property has been removed from the ACV list. Subject to committee approval of this proposal, the appeal against the earlier refusal will be withdrawn; therefore urges committee to support the officer recommendation and approve this application

 

Member debate:

LS: would like some initial advice on the relevance of attached appeal in Devon.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the appeal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

16/01105/FUL 90 Evesham Road pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01105/FUL

Location:

90 Evesham Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

To erect a block and render wall to a height of 2300mm above ground level. Retention of raised patio and retaining wall (retrospective)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

BH introduced it as an application that seeks consent for the erection of a boundary wall measuring 2.3 metres in height located at the rear of the property between the pair of semi-detached houses, the applicant is also seeking retrospective permission for the retention of a raised patio measuring 450mm in height. The application has been called to committee at the request of Councillor Lillywhite who would like members to consider the impact of the development on neighboring amenity.

 

Public speaking:

Mr Potter, applicant, in support

Speaks as a retired Police Officer and a Friend of Pittville and doesn’t flout rules as a matter of course; simply had no idea that the raised patio would require planning permission. Has made a number of improvements to the property, and it is the sloping nature of the site that has resulted in the raised patio and the desire to have a level threshold. Most of the patio is less than 300mm in height and the proposal is considered to have a negligible impact on neighbouring amenity and light. The proposed wall is only 300mm higher than the fallback position but 2m would still allow for invasive views. Made reference tounreasonableness, stating that they were reasonable people acting reasonably.

 

Member debate:

KS: does not feel able to vote on this application as she did not attend the site visit and doesn’t fully understand the application.

BF: saw the site on planning view and considers a rendered wall will be both attractive and provide the necessary privacy. Will support the proposal.

MC: Considers that the height of the raised patio is greater than the 450mm being applied for. Would therefore like further clarification on actual height and whether or not it has been measured and where it was measured from? Is disappointed that the report provides dimensions in millimetres and metres; dimensions should not be mixed.

JP: the applicant is looking to correct an error that stems from building the patio too high which disadvantages the neighbour. The two pictures used in the documents produced by the applicant are from different perspectives which is misleading but fully understands reason for wanting privacy. Feels that the patio is too high but that it would be unreasonable to seek its removal. Questions should be asked of the architect as to why the need for planning permission was not brought to the attention of the applicant - the error should not have happened in the first place.  Will be supporting the application. 

CH: advised committee that standard measurements should be in millimetres and metres and not in centimetres. The patio is not an issue, but the height of the wall is slightly more troubling. Is not prepared to object  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.

 

 

 

 

The meeting ended at 8.00pm.