Agenda and minutes

Councillor Savage sent apologies for late arrival at the meeting.

Councillor Sudbury gave apologies for early departure from the meeting.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th August 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th August 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

MP introduced the application as above.  The recommendation is to refuse because planning policy requires an annexe to have dependency on the host building – this has no reliance, and its size, two bedrooms and raised patio make it tantamount to a separate dwelling.  Officers consider it should therefore be determined on that basis and that, as such, it represents over-development, with the scale, mass, bulk and footprint of the proposed dwelling overwhelming to the size of plot; it appears to be ‘shoehorned’ in.  There is also insufficient evidence that suitable visibility splays can be achieved for the shared access.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Paul McCloskey.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Paul McCloskey, in support

Explained that the applicant moved to Cheltenham with his family in 2011, and would now like to create ancillary accommodation for his wife’s elderly parents.  Two bedrooms are necessary in case one is ill or needs care; the bathroom will need to be able to cope with someone in a wheelchair, maybe with a carer. What is proposed is the minimum necessary, not excessive.  The family is acting responsibly in view of growing problems with social care across the country. The trees officer is now fully satisfied with the proposal, and conditions will be strictly adhered to, in addition to planting further trees as the landscaping progresses.  Regarding highways issue, the TRO to reduce the speed limit on London Road from 40 to 30mph has passed the consultation phase, and at 30mph, a 54-metre splay is sufficient to satisfy Highways requirements.  Any traffic issues disappear if you turn left out of the drive and then right into Hearne Road.  Officers are concerned that any future application to subdivide the plot would be difficult to resist, but understood that it is not the committee’s job to speculate on what might happen at some time in the future, but to judge the application as it stands.  Asks Members to consider carefully the officer’s comment in the report that in view of Cheltenham’s lack of a 5-year housing supply, ‘the application should be approved without delay unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. These people have the right to family life and dignity in old age, and urges the committee to support the application.

Mr Nigel Jobson, applicant, in support

Co-owns 332 London Road with his wife – they are not commercial developers, and the proposed annex is for his parents-in-law, who have sold their 4-bedroomed home to generate capital for their retirement.  They are a close family, and want to help and support their parents as their health inevitably deteriorates, lessening the burden on wider society.  Having them so close will also reduce the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

MP introduced the application as above.  The site is in the north of the borough, in the green belt, at the end of  an unmade track.  It is at Committee because the Parish Council has objected.  Although officers had initial reservations, they are now satisfied that this work can be undertaken and is appropriate to a rural setting, and the recommendation is therefore, on balance, to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

HM:  is concerned about the access.  The site is at the end of a long, narrow track.  When other similar schemes have been considered, passing places have been discussed.  Is there any intention to have them here?  If not, what will happen when one vehicle meets another?

BF:  wants to move to refuse.  This proposal is for a conversion in the green belt;  if it was for a farm building, it could be done without planning permission.  It is currently a stable – an appropriate leisure and sporting use – in  the heart of the green belt, and not part of strategic sites to be taken out.  This development is therefore inappropriate. If the proposal is permitted and subsequently falls down, it would be difficult to resist an application for full planning permission having agreed the principle of building in the green belt. The ground is prone to flooding – a lot of work would have to be done to avert potential problems – and the design is appalling for the green belt. HM has mentioned access, which will be difficult in winter, and also for dustbin and recycling collections every fortnight.  Also, the site is close to the public right of way, part of the circular route around Cheltenham, which is well-used by walkers with dogs etc.  The fields around the site will remain as grazing.  In view of the poor access and inappropriate development in the green belt, will move to refuse on grounds of CO13, CO6 and CP7.

SW:  echoes BF’s comments.  This scheme is so contrived it’s not true.  These are not agricultural buildings, but a poorly-built stable – it is very dilapidated, and if it falls down, where will the planning authority stand regarding the two dwellings?  Will our hands be tied?  Will support BF’s objections; we would not allow these houses to be built afresh, and adapting a poor-quality building and calling it a conversion is just too contrived. 

DS:  is the road due for resurfacing or will it be left as it is and presumably be unadopted when the proposal is finished?

MP, in response:

-       To HM, there are no identified passing places, but Highways assessment suggests that the first 5m of the access should be modified to have a minimum width of 4.1m, with 4.5m entry  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

MJC introduced the application as above, saying it has been reduced in depth during consideration.  It is at Planning Committee because the Parish Council has objected.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

GD introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Nelson.  The reasons for the recommended refusal are two-fold:  firstly the unacceptable impact the proposed extension will have on the neighbour’s amenity, in particular daylight, and secondly that it will not achieve the desired level of subservience. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Adam Greenslade, of Brodie Manning, in support

The applicant’s intention is to improve the overall appearance of his home and secure a much-needed additional bedroom for his growing family, rather than move away from the area where he’s lived for over 16 years and is involved in the community in a business and personal level.  The applicant has devoted a substantial amount of time to the sympathetic renovation of the internal space and re-building the garage in consultation with the conservation officer.  He would now like to focus on the outside of the building, providing a coherent rear addition to replace the ad hoc extensions of the past.  In the design process, a constraint has been the location of a ground floor window at the neighbouring property.  This window is already compromised by the built form on both properties, supported by the a British Research Establishment ‘right to daylight’ calculation which demonstrates no greater loss of light to this window will result from the current proposal.  The aim of the design is to reduce the built of the built form along this boundary by introducing a flat roof and moving the gable away from this boundary, which would  arguably act as an improvement whilst ensuring a sympathetic design solution.  There was no objection from the neighbouring property when the proposal was submitted.

Member debate:

CN:  the update refers to the proposed extension reducing light to the neighbouring window, but by how much?

SW:  the pivotal point is ground floor window; if there was an objection from  next door or if the proposal would break the daylight angle, could not support it, but as there is already inhibition to the neighbour’s window from the current building and the neighbour doesn’t appear to have any objection, is in favour.  The building will look a lot better than its current ramshackle state, with bits on the back here and there – this tidies it up.  Is minded to support.

PB:  agrees with SW.  That there is no objection from the neighbour is pertinent.  The existing building is a bit of a mish-mash, and this will tidy it up.  Can see there are grounds to refuse, but on balance can support the proposal.

PT:  listening to the agent, it sounds as if the new extension will be moved back from the boundary a bit – won’t this improve the situation?  If so, we should support the application.

MJC, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

UJM introduced the application as above, explaining that it is the top sections of the lamps which are to be replaced.  The war memorial was unveiled in 1921, with the original lamps added a few years later.  These were replaced during the 1950s with the current lamps, but these have now come to the end of their lifetime.  The intention is therefore to replace them with replicas of the original 1920s lamps.  The recommendation is to grant listed building consent.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for clarification of the drawings – there appears to be some sort of stick on the top.  Will they be the same as the lamps at the Town Hall?

UJM, in response:

-       what PT is referring to is actually a line showing the dimensions of the finial on the cap of the lamp, based on the original round lamps.  They will be similar to those at the Town Hall, but not the same.

CH:  can’t remember ever having seen the lamps lit?  Is happy to support the application, but it would be nice to see the lamps lit sometimes.

UJM, in response:

-       does not oversee these matters and therefore has no answer for this.

MC:  for clarity, what are the units of the dimensions?

UJM, in response:

-       they are in centimetres – ‘49’ = 49cm, or 0.49 of a metre.

Vote on officer recommendation to grant listed building consent

14 in support – unanimous

GRANT

UJM explained that this application for listed building consent is at Committee because the applicant is CBC.  The proposed work is the installation of a replacement door in a currently empty doorway.  The door will be a replica of the original doors in situ elsewhere in the building.

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to grant listed building consent

14 in support – unanimous

GRANT

There were none.