Agenda and minutes

Councillors McKinlay, Seacome and Lillywhite.

15/01065/FUL 16 Hewlett Road

Councillors Barnes, Thornton, Sudbury, Fisher, Rowena Hay, McCloskey –16 Hewlett Road is Cheltenham Liberal Democrat office, and all are members of the Liberal Democrat party.

Councillor Colin Hay –as above, and also once occupied the workshop.

Councillor Baker –is the applicant. Will leave the Chamber.

Councillor Savage –lives in Hewlett Road.

15/ 00928/ADV & LBC Everyman Theatre

Councillor Barnes – personal – is an observer on the Everyman Board, but has no voting rights.

15/ 00899/FUL Sandford Park

Councillor Sudbury –has publicly supported the scheme and part-funded it from her Gloucestershire County Council ‘Active Together’ fund.  Will leave the Chamber.  

15/00699/FUL 15 Brookway Drive

Councillor Fletcher.

Councillor McCloskey – is familiar with all sites other than 15/01126/FUL 2 Peter Pennell Close and 15/00646/FUL Belmont, Hyde Lane, Swindon Village.

14/01125/FUL Tim Fry Land Rovers, King Alfred Way and 15/00899/FUL Sandford Park

Councillor Baker.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 16^th July 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

CH introduced the application as above.  The site is situated in the Battledown Industrial Estate, which is surrounded by residential properties, and forms part of the wider industrial estate.  The proposal relates to areas to the north and south of King Alfred Way, with access via Hales Road to the west, and Athelney Way to the north..  The original application proposed demolition of the industrial buildings on the site, and replacement with 106 residential units, with 15% affordable housing.  The revised scheme proposes 86 units, with 40% affordable provision.  The application sets out that the site is outdated, poorly located and unsuitable as a modern work environment ; Tim Fry Land Rovers and some of the other businesses have identified three alternative sites, two in Kingsditch Lane and one in Swindon Road, which would allow the company to grow.  The company states that to allow this to happen, residential development of the existing site is essential. 

The application was originally due to come to Committee in April, with a recommendation to refuse, but was deferred to allow further information to be considered.  The applicant has since provided a unilateral undertaking, which is set out in an earlier report update. The unilateral undertaking sets out that if permission for residential development at King Alfred Way is permitted, this will not be implemented until a suitable new employment site is secured.  However, no evidence has been provided to justify the loss of the existing employment land, and the recommendation therefore remains to refuse, on the grounds of the NPPF, Local Plan policy EM2, and Policy SD2 of the emerging JCS.  In addition, Members will note from the blue update that no viability assessment has been submitted to demonstrate that 40% affordable housing can be provided.

Public Speaking:

Mr Guy Wakefield, of Hunter Page Planning, in support

Realises that this is a difficult application due to the loss of employment land, but the process started 5-6 years ago, as a result of the landowner’s need to relocate to better, more modern business premises, with the understanding that other businesses on the site would follow.  The site has been assessed by commercial surveyors who identified various problems with it, and it has been marketed without success. A similar application for residential development on employment land was permitted at the bottom of Leckhampton Road, and in this case, the applicant needs to sell the land for residential development in order to proceed, having talked to banks to realise that other funding is not possible.  The three alternative sites suggested are genuine, and the applicant has proposed that any approval will be subject to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

MJC introduced this application for a revised detached dwelling.  Work has commenced on the permitted scheme, which has resulted in the applicant’s request for a further 450mm on the first floor height, a further 5.1m in first floor width, and an extension to the first floor landing.  The site is in the green belt.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  the key concern here is that this site is in the green belt.  The original dwelling was a very small bungalow with a cast-iron roof and one bedroom.  This grew a lot with the first application and just keeps growing, with a further 5m now requested, apparently for no good reason.  It is now like a film-star’s house, with a massive pool.  With the first design, the only thing showing was a small area at the top; was staggered on Planning View to see how big it has become.  The outbuildings were breeze block dog kennels and a chicken run, not part of the residential dwelling, and this proposal and hedge will make a difference to the green belt – it will stick out like a sore thumb.  The developer proceeded at his own risk; he could have built lower, but this would have cost him more.  The original application was only permitted by a narrow majority, due to the greenbelt location, and now the applicant is asking for an even more massive pad, on a site surrounded by cornfields.  If we could overlay the size of the original proposal with what is now proposed, Members would see that it is a very large increase indeed.

SW:  recalls a similar application to this, at which he voted with other Members but for a very different reason.  There is already planning permission on this land, and if it is to considered as building land, wants to see it built on properly, with more than one dwelling.  If it isn’t, and is still classed as green belt, does not want to see any further development on it.  Will vote in objection.

CHay:  considers the design to be fine; the principle is accepted, and this proposal is just a bit bigger.  Is there any height restriction on the green roof?  If the plants are maintained at 0.5m high, it will make no difference.  Recalls a similar application for a house on Cleeve Hill which was very controversial but went on to win a civic award, as an example of an attractive, modern, good-quality building which enhances the site.  This is just one house in the greenbelt, not rows and rows of housing; it looks good and is acceptable.

MS:  agrees with CHay.  The design is alright, and the original  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

VH introduced the application as above, which is at Committee at the request of Councillor Reid who considers it would dominate the adjacent property as it is over development and not subservient.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

RH:  notes at paragraph 6.18 that the officer does not consider the neighbouring property would lose daylight to an unacceptable degree, but what is an unacceptable degree and how close to being unacceptable is this proposal? 

VH, in response:

-       it is a simple pass or fail of the 45^o light test; this application passes the test.

JF:  is worried about the scheme.  There will undoubtedly be loss of daylight for the neighbours; it is overbearing.  Cannot go along with the officer recommendation.

RH:  doesn’t understand the light test and how it relates to what is in the report.  Will the neighbour lose 40% daylight, 44% or what?

MJC, in response:

-       to clarify the light test, as VH has said, schemes essentially pass or fail it.  It is carried out by projecting 45^o from different parts of the extension; if the centre point of the windows is on the extension side, there will be loss of light.  It is a crude system, but national best practice and routinely carried out;

-       planning guidance talks about loss of more than 20% of daylight being noticeable and therefore any loss below 20% is taken as acceptable;

-       this is quite technical and difficult to explain without pencil and paper, but it is basically about projecting various lines from the highest and deepest points.  Can demonstrate if Members would like.

AC:  it’s interesting that there is a very similar extension next door, and the proposal is no better or worse than that.  The objector  on the other side cannot build a similar extension, as the driveway of that property has been sold off.  If he owned this house and had a family, would want to do exactly what the applicant wants to do.  Considers it perfectly okay.

MS:  to anyone worried about loss of light, it will be noticeable to the neighbours but their sunlight is already compromised by the house next door but one.  Cannot see any problem with this application.

PT:  was going to say something similar.  The large extension on the house beyond definitely affects the light to the house of the neighbour who has objected, and there’s nothing to be done about that.  This proposal won’t make any fundamental difference.  Many of the houses in this area have extensions, not all as big but all on the same track of increasing the size of living accommodation.  Has no problem with this at all.

HM:  is concerned about on-street parking.  The house will be substantial, and may add as many as four  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Councillor Sudbury left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

VC introduced the application as above, which is at Committee because the Park is owned by Cheltenham Borough Council, and comes with a recommendation to permit

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB: is fortunate to represent this area and live close to the Park.  The Friends of Sandford Park have been engaged in this scheme, and Councillor Sudbury has put forward an application for funding to the County Council, to encourage the community to engage more fully.  It is a superb scheme, will provide fantastic local amenity and enhance the area.

CHay:  this is a great scheme, and the timing is particularly brilliant with the 60^th anniversary of Cheltenham’s twinning with Annecy coming up.  Hopefully the two towns can challenge each other to a game on the new pitches

BF:  this is an excellent scheme, and as the Plough at Prestbury also has petanque courts, could see the start of a petanque league!

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support - unanimous

PERMIT

CS introduced this application, at the Grade II-listed Everyman Theatre.  Listed building consent and advertising consent are sought for illuminated message units which will display information relating to the theatre only.  The Conservation Officer and Highways Officers do not have any objection to the scheme.  It is at Committee because Cheltenham Borough Council owns the site and the officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Geoffrey Rowe, Chief Executive of the Everyman Theatre, in support

There are two reasons for this application:  the first is commercial, like any exterior signs, to sell seats and advertise the catering facilities at the theatre.  The second is to counter the appearance that the theatre isn’t open - it is a Victorian building, and can often appear closed.  The Everyman relies on ticket sales and catering, with 90% of its income coming from sales, and during the day in particular, it tends to look dark and closed, situated as it is among lit-up shops and restaurants.  The display signs will show that the theatre is open for business and encourage sales.  When it was built in 1891, the Victorians preferred to keep their pleasures private, so the windows are small and the audience not visible from outside.  Modern theatres, on the other hand, like to show their wares.  The elitist image still lingers, but illuminated signs will counter the impression that the theatre is only for those in the know.  The signs won’t affect the listed exterior of the building as they will be fastened to the canopy and can easily be removed.  They will soon be accepted as part of the exterior and something people expect from a place of entertainment.

Member debate:

AC:  this is a no-brainer – a wonderful proposal.  Is a big supporter of the Everyman, and this will achieve exactly what it wants to achieve.  It’s true that it can look closed during the day.  Fully supports the proposal.

LS:  this is an excellent proposal, very eloquently described by Mr Rowe.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit/grant

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT/GRANT

Councillor Baker left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

CS explained that this application seeks to make amendments to the existing single storey extension to the rear of this property, inserting a window to the side and replacing the existing garage door with a window.  There is no change of use, and all alterations are external.  It is at Planning Committee because the property is owned by Councillor Baker.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application as above, which is at Planning Committee because the site is owned by Cheltenham Borough Homes.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

HM:  fully supports this application, which is much needed. The new extension will be a bedroom.  The existing second bedroom is small and will be converted to an en suite bathroom with disabled access to Bedroom 1.  With the ageing population, there are likely to be more and more applications of this type.  It is an excellent proposal and should be supported.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

There were none.