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

89.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors Oliver, Nelson, Lillywhite and Baker.

 

90.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

16/01812/FUL Kohler Mira Ltd, Cromwell Road

Councillor Rowena Hay – is speaking in objection to this application – will leave the Chamber. 

 

 

17/00017/FUL & LBC Shoreline Cottage

Councillor Barnes received a bundle of papers from the applicant; he did not look at these but has given them straight to officers.  KS said that she suggested the applicant send the package of information to all Committee members, as the photos did not copy particularly well.  Other councillors confirmed that they received the documents but did not look at them.

 

91.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

There were none.

92.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

93.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 234 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 19th January 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

94.

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

95.

16/01755/CONDIT Land at Manor Farm pdf icon PDF 254 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number: 

16/01755/CONDIT 

Location: 

Land at Manor Farm 

 

DEFERRED

 

 

96.

16/01812/FUL Kohler Mira Ltd, Cromwell Road pdf icon PDF 327 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number: 

16/01812/FUL 

Location: 

Kohler Mira, Cromwell Road 

Proposal: 

Provision of secondary vehicular access onto Cromwell Road, extension to existing cycle shed to provide 40no. additional cycle spaces, alterations to car parking layout, and new pedestrian path, security fencing and landscaping.

View: 

Yes 

Officer Recommendation: 

Permit 

Committee Decision: 

Permit 

Letters of Rep: 

 12

Update Report: 

 Additional condition

 

 

MJC introduced the application as above, for variation of works already permitted at Kohler Mira.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Rowena Hay, due to the high level of concern from residents.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking

Councillor Rowena Hay, in objection

Recognises that Kohler Mira is a large local employer and understands the need for the site to be modernised to achieve safer site management, but challenges the need for two vehicle entrances.  Welcomes the cycle and pedestrian elements of the scheme, but is concerned that the automatic  barriers will result in congestion at peak times.  This is not a quiet road as stated in the report; the second entrance will increase movement, and result in a loss of parking spaces.  It may not represent a loss of amenity in planning terms, but will affect those living in the area, and could also cause problems for the A bus which runs every ten minutes.  Residents are also concerned about the safety risk to parents and children attending Oakwood School; the build-outs were installed to ensure safe crossing to Bredon Walk and these will now be moved.  The tactile paving and dropped kerb will remain, however, which could be a hazard for the visually impaired.   The trees officer’s suggestion for three replacements trees should be conditioned.  Also, smoking off-site and cigarette rubbish is an issue for local residents and not good for Kohler Mira’s public image.  Improving the shelter for smoking is not part of the planning consideration but is an issue to note. There is also the issue of noise and disturbance, in addition to the loss of mature trees, to be considered. 

Member debate

HM:  RH mentioned the barriers to access the site.  Will these be permanently up during shift change-over times or rise and fall for every car?

CH:  the new access is intended to separate public and private areas of the site, but the public area looks like a staff car park.  The point about the barrier is important; if it goes up and down for each vehicle, it will cause considerable congestion at shift change times.  There could be some confusion about the separate car parks when there are so many parking spaces.  If there is not adequate signage and the public don’t know where to go, they may drive into the wrong entrance further down the road.  It would be good to understand what Kohler Mira intend to happen.

MC:  as a aside – a minor detail but nonetheless annoying – P46 of the officer report refers to Gloucester County Council – this should be Gloucestershire.

BF:  on site view, Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

97.

16/01994/FUL 53 St George's Drive pdf icon PDF 190 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number: 

16/01994/FUL 

Location: 

53 St Georges Drive Cheltenham Gloucestershire 

Proposal: 

Drop kerb to provide access with gravel hardstanding 

View: 

Yes 

Officer Recommendation: 

Permit 

Committee Decision: 

Refuse 

Letters of Rep: 

 14

Update Report: 

 [transcript of applicant’s public speech]

 

MJC introduced the application as above, to create off-street parking for two cars.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Willingham, in response to the high level of local interest in relation to parking concerns.  The report sets out that this issue has been considered.  The recommendation is to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking: 

Ms Julie Fisher, neighbour, in objection 

A total of 14 neighbours have objected to this proposal .  St George’s Drive is comprised of 67 two-bedroomed maisonettes; the ground floors ones have street facing front garden and rear garden; the top ones just have a rear garden.  As a result, most people park on the road, other than some properties on the roundabout, and two properties with planning permission to convert their gardens to drives. During the daytime and holidays, the street is quite quiet, but in the evening and at night, it is full, sometimes impossible to find a parking space.  With this proposal, two on-street spaces will be lost to provide two private spaces.  The current tenant only has one vehicle to one parking space is lost to the street.  There is an average of one car per household. As only ground floor maisonettes have the opportunity to convert their front gardens, residents of the top maisonettes lose the chance to park near their property.  This was acknowledged when a previous application was permitted, though the officer stated that each case must be considered on its own merits.  Many residents consider the tipping point has now been reached, and current parking difficulties in the road will be further exacerbated by knock-on effect of the parking permit scheme in adjacent roads, coming into effect in July.  In addition, the removal of front gardens spoils the appearance of the street, and affects wildlife.  The loss of two more parking spaces is more than the street can bear.  To sum up, this proposal is unfair to top floor maisonettes, will reduce the number of on-street parking spaces, and will be detrimental to wildlife and the appearance of the street.

 

 

Mrs Carol Gilbert, applicant, in support (not present at meeting) 

Transcript of speech: 

 

I believe mine is only the third Application of this kind which does not seem excessive given the number of properties in the road and I understand that neither the Planning nor Highways Depts. have an issue with it. 

 

From the residents point of view, I would suggest the real problem emanates from the fact that three other properties, Nos. 29,35 & 41, have converted to off street parking without consent. .

 

I have read the various objections and feel that comments regarding detriment to the appearance of the street are not relevant as brand new gravel with a stone front edge could only be an improvement to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

98.

16/02132/FUL Municipal Offices (war memorial) pdf icon PDF 203 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number: 

16/02132/FUL

Location: 

Municipal Offices 

Proposal: 

Erection of war memorial interpretation board 

View: 

Yes 

Officer Recommendation: 

Permit 

Committee Decision: 

Permit

Letters of Rep: 

 0

Update Report: 

 None

 

UJM introduced the application as above, the interpretation board to be mounted on a Forest of Dean stone stand to the front of the Long Gardens, providing a brief history of the work on the war memorial.

Member debate

KS:  will support the application but finds these interpretation boards irritating clutter.  They always look nice and fresh to begin with and then deteriorate, with no resources available to keep them looking nice.  Is there no technological way to provide the information, that won’t become an eyesore in ten years’ time?

SW:  agrees with KS, and has an additional concern.  If the stand is to be Forest of Dean stone, cannot support the proposal – it should be Cotswold stone.

PT:  agrees, and would ask that it be kept in a reasonable state.  It is right in front of the Municipal Offices, and it should be possible for it to be kept clean.  It is a good thing that people will be informed about the war memorial, however, as not everyone has access to computers.

KH:  doesn’t care what stone is used for the plinth, but a QR code shouldn’t be used  – no-one ever uses them.

MC:  it’s essential that the war memorial and what it represents is kept up together, and is glad that this work is being done.   Is also not concerned about what stone is used, but permission should be granted and it should be kept looking nice.

UJM, in response:

-            the reason for the Forest of dean stone for the plinth is to match the railings and the stone within the memorial.

 

SW:  if the stone is yellow in colour, will have no objection; was concerned that it would be red stone.  It’s all about the colour.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

 

99.

17/00017/FUL & LBC Shoreline Cottage, Back Montpellier Terrace pdf icon PDF 284 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number: 

17/00017/FUL 

Location: 

Shoreline Cottage, Back Montpellier Terrace 

Proposal: 

Proposed removal of a modern lean-to on the rear of number 8 Suffolk Square, erection of a two-storey rear infill extension to Shoreline Cottage 

View: 

Yes 

Officer Recommendation: 

Refuse 

Committee Decision: 

Permit

Letters of Rep: 

 0

Update Report: 

 None

CS introduced the application as above, for an extension to a modern coach house to the rear of GII* listed 8 Suffolk Square.  Permission was granted for the coach house in 2012, after lengthy discussion, and planning permission and listed building consent are now being sought for a two-storey infill, following removal of the lean-to.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, who questions officers’ conclusion that the proposal will have a harmful impact on the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.  Neither Historic England nor the conservation officer consider the scheme to be acceptable, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

 

 

Public Speaking

Mr Peter Pritchard, applicant, in support

Conservation officer, planning officer and Historic England have all objected to this application on two grounds.  Firstly because of the adverse impact on the rear of No. 8 Suffolk Square, and Grade II listed building, describing it as substantial, modern, large, unwieldy, disjointed, not subservient, with an impact on the appearance of 8 Suffolk Square which would be considerable and detrimental, and transforming the size and mass of the Coach House.   In reality, the infill can hardly be seen, and entirely complements Shoreline Cottage, which itself totally blends in, architecturally and aesthetically.  Both Historic England and CBC admit that the impact will be limited, and state that the infill will not impact negatively on the amenity of the surrounding properties – not loss of light or privacy.  It therefore meets the criteria of Policy CP4.  It is a small pretty extension to Shoreline Cottage, extending the character and scale of this model, traditional mews coach house, not damaging or detracting from the appearance of the listed building.  The second objection is that the infill has a considerable detrimental effect on the conservation area.  In reality, Back Montpellier Terrace is not attractive, but  more a jumble of garage doors and fences, dominated by high brick and rendered walls.  But for its situation between Suffolk Square and Montpellier Terrace, the lane would probably not be in the conservation area at all, or deemed of any architectural or historic value. No neighbours have objected, probably for this reason.  Members have visited the site and seen for themselves.  Cannot understand why the conservation and planning officers are so opposed to it and, apart from anything else, a new two bedroomed home will be created for future families.  Shoreline Cottage and the extension meet every planning criteria of the Planning Act, and will enhance and promote the character and appearance of the conservation area, as the most attractive and historically sympathetic Coach House to be erected in the lance since the early 19th century.

 

 

Member debate

KS:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

100.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.