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

80.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor Colin Hay.

 

81.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

None.

 

82.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Paul McCloskey, as a late substitute, did not attend Planning View but has visited both sites independently.

 

83.

Public Questions

Minutes:

None.

 

84.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 165 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 15th December 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction:

 

2.  Declaration of interest

16/01909/FUL 53 Beeches Road

Councillor McCloskey – is a resident of Beeches Road  is a close neighbour of the only objector.  Will leave the Chamber.

 

 

85.

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

86.

16/01756/CONDIT Travis Perkins, Brook Road pdf icon PDF 260 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01756/CONDIT

Location:

Travis Perkins Brook Road Cheltenham

Proposal:

Variation of Conditions 11 (Servicing Hours) and 13 (Trading Hours) of 16/01446/CONDIT to allow extended opening hours (revised hours proposed - see revised covering letter)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

6

Update Report:

None

 

 

EP introduced the application as above, to vary the hours of business as previously permitted, to allow deliveries between 9.00 and 17.00 on Saturdays and Sundays, and open to customers between 7.00 and 17.30 on Saturdays and 10.00 and 18.00 on Sundays.  Highways officers have provided additional information and raise no objection.  Officers consider the impact on neighbouring properties will be acceptable, and have no objection.  The application is at Committee as the request of Councillor Willingham.

 

Public Speaking

 

Mr Christopher Rainey, neighbour, in objection

Began by asking what is the benefit this development has given to the community.  It removed an eyesore on the site, as the previous factory building had fallen into disrepair and given rise to many problems including squatting and vandalism.  Travis Perkins traded for many years at Gloucester Road without extending the hours to Saturday afternoon or Sunday.  As it provides building materials to the trade, extending hours when this key client group is not at work seems foolhardy, but if hours had been extended at Gloucester Road – a broad, tree-lined road with houses almost 100 yards away, and site entrances and exits onto the main road – the impact on local residents would have been minimal.  This is not the case with the new site, with its main entrance on a small residential side road.   Brook Road residents have endured an extremely intrusive building programme – heavy excavating machinery and a ceaseless stream of large delivery vehicles – but believed this disturbance was temporary.  This has not been the case.  Noise and vibration from large articulated lorries continues, and may increase the possibility of subsidence and structural damage in the future.  Residents had expected to endure lorries and vans during the working week, but to contend with this at weekends is intolerable. It’s true that this is a highly developed area, with a retail park opposite, but its entrance is not in close proximity to houses, and Sunday hours are strictly observed.   If the application is permitted, the increase in traffic and footfall will produce a noticeable incursion into the social and community life of the street – loss of residents’ parking spaces, children unable to play in the street, the elderly needing to be constantly vigilant when leaving their homes – together with the risk to health of increased pollution and loss of amenity for all residents.  Realises that the Council has to consider commercial interests, but urges Members to take into account the social impact as well.

 

Mr Adam Cornish, agent, in support

Travis Perkins’s priority is to be a good neighbour both to residents and competitors, and there is much recent evidence of them developing, redeveloping and occupying mixed used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

87.

16/01790/FUL Cheltenham Ladies College, Malvern Road pdf icon PDF 327 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01790/FUL

Location:

Cheltenham Ladies College Malvern Road Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of 6No. retractable lighting columns to provide illumination of the 'old astro pitch' at Cheltenham Ladies' College Playing Field.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

11

Update Report:

(i)            Officer Comments

(ii)          Additional representation

 

 

EP introduced the application as above, to add six retractable floodlights to the existing hockey pitch.  These would to 15m high when extended, 3.5m when retracted, with controls on usage – until 7.00pm Monday to Friday, and until 6.00pm on Saturdays. A lighting report was submitted with the application; its findings have been verified and are acceptable.  Officers accept that the proposal will have some impact on neighbours, but deem this to be temporary.  There are no objections from highways officers.  On balance, the application is considered to be acceptable.

 

Public Speaking

Dr Sally James, neighbour, in objection

Although this proposal will cause personal distress to those living close to the site due to light intrusion to their properties, neighbours are more concerned about the harm to the conservation area brought about by 15m-high floodlights, which will dwarf houses and trees and dominate the skyline.  This will have an overwhelmingly negative impact and be quite out of keeping with the conservation area.  The NPPF sets out that new development should have positive impact, but there is no public benefit from this application, and the school’s undoubted economic success is clearly not dependant on the installation of these floodlights.  On the contrary, the proposal will cause harm, and in conditions of mist and drizzle, the light level will be as much as 50 lux.  Any need for these lights has not been demonstrated – the school desires them rather than needs them, even though pupils prefer indoor sports to outdoor team-based activity.  If hockey was timetabled for the morning, the question could be asked as to why a second pitch is needed at all?  In addition to this, there are potential road safety concerns when the floodlights are illuminated, causing bright light and dark shadow to fall between buildings on the adjacent road near the junction.  This can be lethal, as the eye takes time to react.  With additional traffic from visiting schools, all road users will be at risk from accident and injury.    If this application is permitted, in an E2 zone in a conservation area, it will set a new precedent for Cheltenham, and floodlights will be allowed anywhere by referencing this decision.  For these reasons, the application must be refused.

 

Miss Jardine Young, applicant, in support

The subject of this application was first introduced as part of integrated plan for all sport, health and fitness facilities, in November 2015.   The floodlighting element of the scheme was subsequently withdrawn before Planning Committee, to allow for the College’s lighting consultant to respond to questions from the independent lighting consultant appointed by CBC officers – did not want to put the College’s name to an application whose technical specifications were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

88.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.