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

210.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors Baker and Collins.

211.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

17/01790/FUL Playground, Old Reddings Road

Councillor Seacome – is a member of the Public Art Panel which commissioned the artwork – does not consider this to be a prejudicial interest and will therefore take part in the debate and vote.

 

17/01303/FUL 66 Townsend Street

Councillor Fisher – didn’t view the application site from the neighbour’s property, but has had dealings on case work with the speaker, and given guidance – will withdraw from the Chamber. 

 

212.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

None.

 

213.

Public Questions

Minutes:

None.

 

214.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 241 KB

Minutes:

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

 

215.

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

216.

17/01411/OUT Phase 1, Land at Old Gloucester Road pdf icon PDF 329 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01411/OUT

Location:

Phase 1, Land at Old Gloucester Road

Proposal:

Outline application for proposed residential development of up to 90 dwellings, associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure, including new vehicular access to Old Gloucester Road

 

DEFERRED

 

 

217.

17/01220/FUL Cotswold View, Reddings Road pdf icon PDF 107 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01220/FUL

Location:

Cotswold View The Reddings Cheltenham

Proposal:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3no. dwellings

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

48

Update Report:

i.        Letter from applicant, email from neighbour

ii.       Letter from Councillor Collins

 

EP introduced the application as above, reminding Members that it was deferred in September, for Members’ concerns about two issues to be further investigated.  Firstly, highway safety:  following the meeting, the applicant commissioned a speed survey with a Highways Authority approved consultant.  This demonstrated that the 85th percentile speed travelling to the south west was 31mph, requiring visibility splays of 48m, and to the north east 19.9mph, requiring a splay of 25m.  These results have been  passed to highways officers, who are confident that the visibility splays provided will exceed those required.  The plans have also been amended to accommodate a 1.2m-wide pavement.  Secondly, the status of the building:  the conservation officer had previously stated that the building had been significantly compromised over the years, and does not have the architectural merit to warrant listing.  The recommendation therefore remains to permit, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Paul Thomas, on behalf of Reddings Residents Association, in objection

At the September meeting, committee members wanted a traffic survey because of road safety concerns. Peak traffic speeds were recorded at over 60mph, although the  positioning of equipment not in line with Highways standing advice.  This was raised with the highways officer, as the equipment was located near a bus stop, near a junction, and where cars regularly park outside a shop.  Guidance states to avoid these as the results are not representative of the true speed. Residents asked Highways for a survey in accordance with guidance, and were told it would be  unreasonable to ask for another survey – in view of the safety issue, an unacceptable response. The visibility splays and narrow pavement can only be realised if both adjacent neighbours remove fences in their ownership which they will not do – so how will the development work.   The applicant has attempted to incorporate a narrow pavement, exposing other issues with that are wrong with this proposal. The proposed pavement is 1.2m wide, narrow in the context of traffic volume and peak speeds, and unsafe for parents with small children or a push chair.  The adjoining pavements are 1.8m with a 1.5m grass verge.  This amendment also makes the drives shorter, exacerbating safety worries as any large parked vehicle on the driveways will block visibility further. Given the known road dangers, all the neighbouring properties, near the roundabout have turning areas. The revised proposals have removed most of the green landscaping at the front of the properties; the tree officer wants to preserve the Rowan and requested a landscaping plan, but these have not been submitted.  The drawings are confused and contradictory; the 3D images show shrubs and trees where there is a small patch of grass, which will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.

218.

17/01521/FUL 32 Noverton Lane, Prestbury pdf icon PDF 9 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/01521/FUL

Location:

32 Noverton Lane, Prestbury

Proposal:

Replacement of single storey sunroom and internal alterations (retrospective)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

HDJ introduced this retrospective planning application for further extension, which was deferred in October to allow Members the opportunity to visit the neighbouring property and witness the effect of the extension on the sunroom.  There are no changes to the application, and the officer recommendation remains to permit. 

 

Public Speaking:

Ms Unett, neighbour, in objection

Owns the connecting semi-detached bungalow – has lived there for 13 years.  The sunrooms are adjacent, separated by just over a foot, originally built in similar styles to give balance and consideration to the rotation and reflection of the sun.  The new structure at No. 32 raises the adjacent wall by over 4ft, resulting in a looming wall which blocks the sun and makes her conservatory redundant for much of the year.  During the summer shadow is cast over half the conservatory, leaving the sofa in constant shade.  A conservatory is designed to benefit from the sun but this is being denied by this extension, with no consideration for the impact on her property.  The majority of the blame for this falls with the architect and builder, who have proceeded without checking or understanding building regulation requirements or the restrictions of permitted development.  The neighbours are also accountable for ignoring neighbourly consideration.  The council’s original advice was not to do anything but to let the process take its course, which was extremely difficult advice to follow.   Seeing the building develop daily while waiting for planning enforcement to attend the site and deem that planning permission was required was excruciating and has led to the current situation.  For this reason, CBC planning enforcement team is equally responsible with the architect and builder.  They were first notified 24 hours after the initial wall was built, but turned up two weeks later when the structure was complete.  Both she and the applicants have been failed by the system.  Is not opposed to development within reason, but this is unnecessarily intrusive and has been constructed with no consideration for her adjoining property.

 

Mr Tucker, on behalf of the applicants, in support

Is speaking on behalf of his parents-in-law, the applicants, to put over an accurate representation of the situation.  The extension at 32 Noverton Lane was well considered, taking into account numerous extensions of a similar type in the area, and to achieve one consistent floor level throughout the bungalow. A trusted draughtsman and local builder with good reputations and skills were employed, who have done their jobs to the best of their ability. The ground slopes away from the front of the bungalow to the back, and the previous structure had a poorly designed sun room, with damp and subsidence problems, as well as a dangerous one-foot step down into it from the back bedroom, making it difficult for the owner and any future occupants  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

219.

17/01303/FUL 66 Townsend Street pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01303/FUL

Location:

66 Townsend Street, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Two-storey side extension

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

GD introduced the application as above, for a two-storey side extension.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hobley.  The recommendation is to approve.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Patel, neighbour, in objection

Objects to loss of sunlight to his property resulting from the extension; the back of his property overlooks the railway bridge, so the front outlook is particularly important.  Also has concerns about the whole process with property landlords.  Living opposite this house, is aware of a variety of anti-social behaviour -  comings and goings throughout the night, car doors slamming between midnight and 6.00am – the police have records of previous tenants.    Struggles to keep the street clean, scrubbing it with bleach some mornings, and is concerned about the effect on his young daughter of living opposite this house.  The landlord won’t speak to him, despite there being no communication issues.  Is also concerned about the number of HMOs, in Townsend Street.  Parking is a big problem, and often ends up parking 2-3 streets away.  This proposal will mean the loss of a parking slot, making the situation even worse.  There is an increasing number of HMOs – with 60 houses, the street could easily end up with 150 cars.  Has a serious objection to this proposal for the number of HMOs, the anti-social behaviour of the tenants, and the loss of a parking space

 

Member debate:

SW:  has enormous sympathy with the speaker but unfortunately very little of what he has said can be considered by Members when judging the application. Can see that he is frustrated with the situation, but his concerns regarding the tenants’ behaviour are a police matter and cannot be taken into consideration.  Regarding the loss of light, the proposal would easily pass the light test, and is nowhere near having any impact on the property opposite.

 

KH:  asked for this application to come to Committee, because of the issues raised by the speaker, and  because he is ward councillor for the area.  Has not done an independent site visit, but works down the road and knows the area well.  BF is the county councillor for the area and is aware of the issues mentioned by the speaker; it is a shame that he cannot take part in the debate.  Members are always frustrated and annoyed that they can’t take the impact of parking into account when making planning decisions.  At the moment, the space this application proposes to build on is used for off-road parking; Townsend Street is an extremely difficult road on which to park.  It is not safe, is always busy, and because it was left out from the county council’s residents’ parking scheme, it has become the place for all the displaced parking from St Paul’s, causing real difficulties for residents of Townsend Street and the surrounding streets.  It is very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219.

220.

17/01719/FUL Lindens Tower, New Barn Lane pdf icon PDF 172 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01719/FUL

Location:

Lindens Tower, New Barn Lane

Proposal:

Replacement windows and new doors (part retrospective)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application for replacement windows and doors in the Prestbury conservation area.  It is at Planning Committee due to an objection from the Parish Council. The officer recommendation is to approve.

Public Speaking:

None.

 

Member debate:

None.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

 

221.

17/01790/FUL Playground, Old Reddings Road pdf icon PDF 200 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01790/FUL

Location:

Playground, Old Reddings Road

Proposal:

Proposed installation on 3 public realm art panels

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

7

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application as above, to install a piece of public art at Humpty Dumps playground in Old Reddings Road.  It is at Committee because CBC is the applicant, and the recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

Member debate:

SW: this is a wonderful piece of artwork.  Is glad to see it installed.

 

RH:  it has taken an awfully long time to spend this S106 money.  Well done to everyone involved for getting to this stage.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

 

 

 

222.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

None.