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 draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

223.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor Savage.

224.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

17/02022/FUL & LBC The Cheltenham Townhouse, 12-14 Pittville Lawn

Councillor Lillywhite – owns the hotel – will leave the Chamber.

 

17/01566/CONDIT Door 4, 4 Montpellier Walk

Councillor Seacome  - the applicant has done work in his property – will leave the Chamber

 

16/02208/FUL Land at North Road West and Grovefield Way

Councillor Wheeler – has attended meetings regarding concerns about the BMW site (which is also owned by the applicant) but has had nothing to do with the application being considered tonight – will remain in the Chamber.

 

225.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

16/02208/FUL Land at North Road West and Grovefield Way

Councillor Collins – has visited the site many times. 

 

226.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

227.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 311 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 16th November 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

 

228.

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

229.

16/02208/FUL Land at North Road West and Grovefield Way pdf icon PDF 663 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/02208/FUL

Location:

Land At North Road West And Grovefield Way, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Hybrid application seeking detailed planning permission for a 5,034 sq.m of commercial office space (Use Class B1), 502 sq.m day nursery (Use Class D1), 1,742 sq.m supermarket food retail unit (Class A1), a 204 sq.m coffee shop retail unit and drive-thru (Use Classes A1 and A3), with associated parking, landscaping and infrastructure works. Outline planning permission sought for the erection of 8,034 sq.m of commercial office space (Use Class B1), together with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure works, with all matters reserved (except access).

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

339

Update Report:

i.              Additional neighbour comment

ii.            Letter from agent re. North Place

iii.           Officer update

 

EP introduced the application as above, reminding Members that planning permission for the whole site was first granted in 2007, following an appeal.  Permission for the flagship BMW showroom was granted in 2014, and that scheme has now been implemented.  The remainder of the site is the subject of this application, and already has extant outline planning permission for up to 16,800 sq. metres of B1 employment use – the fall-back position for the applicant.  In addition, with the adoption of the JCS on Monday, the site is no longer within the green belt.  Regarding the non-B1 uses, officers consider the principle to be acceptable as together they only make up a small percentage of site, and in addition they provide jobs for Cheltenham; refusal of the application on loss of employment land would not be sustainable at appeal. A sequential test has been carried out and gives rise to some ambiguity, but the officer view is that if the test were concluded, it would be of little assistance in determining the application, and that the proposal is therefore acceptable, giving greater weight to the economic benefit of the proposal than to the uncertainty re North Place.  It will bring forward significant employment, and the design, lay-out, landscaping, flooding, drainage and ecology are all satisfactory.  There has been a considerable number of objections which officers have taken on board, but considered against all criteria, officers feel the proposal is acceptable, and the recommendation is therefore to approve subject to S106. 

 

Before the application is discussed, officers would like Members to watch a fly-through presentation which they have not yet seen. 

 

(Presentation)

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Gary Fulford, Reddings Residents Association, in objection

Reddings residents support B1 use on the site, but do not consider retail use to be appropriate or necessary.  Most of the 338 objections from residents, councillors, businesses, residents associations and the parish council relate to non-B class use.  The Green Belt was designated for employment use for 1200 B1 jobs; BMW has taken 33% of the site for non-B1 jobs; the non-B1 elements of this proposal will take another 12% of the site for 21 new full time jobs, at a cost of 132  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

230.

17/01390/FUL 10 Greenway Lane pdf icon PDF 176 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01390/FUL

Location:

10 Greenway Lane, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of one new four-bedroom house to the rear of No.10 Greenway Lane.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

12

Update Report:

None

 

BH introduced the application as above, originally for two dwellings but now for just one.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Babbage in view of the level of local interest.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking

Mrs Claire Watson, neighbour, in objection

Moved to Little Ashley Court in 2014, conscious that No 10 Greenway Lane and/or its garden could be development in the future, but hopeful that any new building would be sympathetic in scale and character.  Three years on, this is the fourth application for development in the garden of No 10, and although the plan is now for just one house rather than two, it needs to be seen in the context of the renovations made to the main house.  No. 10 has been greatly enlarged into the roof and the garden, and is now a very different property – impressive but an imposing and dominating presence for the homes facing it, and also reducing the garden space in which to build.  The plans show another property could be squeezed in, but is this justifiable, given the detrimental effect on neighbours and local amenity?  There are nine properties encircling the site, including No. 10; a house landlocked in the middle will impact negatively in terms of light intrusion, noise, traffic safety issues, additional hard surface, and less habitat for birdlife.  To accommodate the building, six mature conifers – which form the only remaining screen between Little Ashley Court and No. 10 – are likely to be felled.  Several mature deciduous trees and an orchard have already been cut down, and even if new planting is conditioned, can any new planting scheme for this confined space give anything like the year-round protection the conifers currently afford?  They only provide a partial screen now, from the light at night and feeling of intrusion by day from No. 10.  The proposed house appears to be closer to Little Ashley Court than to No. 10, and the three houses directly facing No. 10 already feel they overlook the property far more than they would wish.  On behalf of the residents of 4 and 5 Little Ashley Court as well as themselves, their enjoyment of their properties and the amenity has already been adversely affected by the renovation of 10 Greenway Lane.  Will any positive contribution be made by building the proposed house on the space in between?  Is it a truly sustainable option given the existing built environment at this end of Ryeworth Road and Greenway Lane.  Residents feel it would be a poor outcome for the surrounding neighbours and the amenity in general. 

 

Mr Jeremy Shaw, applicant, in support

This is an application for contemporary four-bedroomed house to the rear of 10 Greenway Lane.  The previous application for two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

231.

17/01411/OUT Phase 1, Land at Old Gloucester Road pdf icon PDF 55 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01411/OUT

Location:

Phase 1, Land At Old Gloucester Road, Cheltenham

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

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

6

Update Report:

i.              Consultee comment from TBC

ii.            Officer update

 

MJC introduced the application as above, for 90 dwellings including 40% affordable housing.  The site has been removed from the greenbelt under the JCS, and identified as suitable for 175 houses in the emerging Cheltenham Plan.  The outline is an indicative lay-out, with the necessary open space, landscaping and infrastructure.  Consideration was deferred last month pending a comment from Historic England.  It has no objection to this application; had concerns regarding Phase 2 – the heritage report identifies an ancient monument in the north of the site, on land in Tewkesbury borough.  Officer recommendation is that the scheme be permitted, subject to conditions regardinig S106, affordable housing, education and library contributions.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Phil Staddon, agent, in support

This is an important and much needed development, representing the first planned scheme in a new era of planned growth for Cheltenham.  It is a housing opportunity identified by the JCS inspector as one of a number of sites which should come forward in the short term to help address the lack of new housing land supply in the town.  This has been confirmed by this week’s adoption of the JCS, and through the latest version of the Cheltenham Plan, which allocates this site for housing development.  Has worked closely with GCC and CBC, and provided a comprehensive master plan approach to ensure everything is joined up.  Commissioned a major research project on flood risk, which demonstrates that the sites are outside the 1:1000 year flood risk.  CBC has confirmed that the smaller Phase 3 nursery site was not affected by the July 2007 flood event, and the agent’s flood risk work is fully endorsed by the Environment Agency.  The LLFA technical issues simply concern the position of the balancing pond which can be addressed by condition.  The only neighbouring property will not b unduly affected, with extensive landscaping around it retained.  The indicative layout is spacious with generous gardens, off-street parking and large areas of landscaped open space.  The S106 agreement will guarantee 40% affordable housing – 36 homes, 27 of which will be rented; this is desperately needed and can be delivered quickly with CBC support.  The S106 also guarantees payments to invest in local schools and libraries.  The scheme will be high quality, attractive and sustainable.  The applicants thank officers for their assistance and support and hope that Members will support the scheme.  If they do, work on the detailed planning application will begin straight away, helping to deliver much-needed new homes in the borough as soon as possible.

 

 

Member debate:

CN:  the agent talked about guaranteeing 40% affordable housing.  This is something  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231.

232.

17/01459/FUL Gallagher Retail Park, Tewkesbury Road pdf icon PDF 455 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01459/FUL

Location:

Gallagher Retail Park, Tewkesbury Road

Proposal:

Erection of a Class A1 retail unit comprising 929 sq m at ground floor with full cover mezzanine, car parking, re-alignment of service yard access, renewal / adjustment of service yard drainage, diversion of a Class 5 highway, and associated works to the west of Unit A Gallagher Retail Park.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

Officer update

 

MJC introduced this application for a new two-floor retail unit as above.  The site straddles the administrative boundaries of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury boroughs, and identical applications have been submitted to both councils.  It is at planning committee at the request of Councillor Clucas, due to concerns about site access, anti-social behaviour on site, and public right of way.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Peter Waldren, agent, in support

Having read the very through report and update, it is clear that the key issues have all been covered.  Councillor Clucas raised the issue of anti-social behaviour (‘boy racers’) and the proposed right of way diversion.  Will meet with Councillor Clucas and local colleagues in the new year, to discuss these issues further, but the retail park managers have advised that the boy racer issue don’t relate specifically to the site, but more to the roads around it.  The site’s car park entrances and exits are all barriered, and will close 30 minutes after the shop units close.  Furthermore, raised tables have been installed along the road running through the site as a further speed prevention measure, and all cars entering and leaving the car parks are monitored by automatic number plate recognition, all of which ensures that the potential for anti-social use of the site has been fully addressed.   A separate diversion order application for the right of way will be made after tonight’s resolution, and will be an improvement on the existing route which is subject to anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping and rough sleeping.  It will be safe, lit, paved and maintained, and the highways authorities have raised no objection to it.  Retail advisers have confirmed that the proposal meets the required retail tests in that there are no sequentially preferable alternative sites and no significant adverse retail impacts on the town centre, and the retail consultant has no objection, subject to the conditions set out in the report.  The green belt designation of part of the site (in Tewkesbury borough) has now fallen away following the adoption of the JCS.  Regarding traffic and parking, the highways authorities is content that 41 parking spaces is sufficient for the additional floorspace, particularly as customers will already be visiting other units on the site.  No objections have been raised, having specifically considered highway safety and the compatibility of this proposal with the Elms Park proposal.  The applicants have worked closely with officers and amended the scheme significantly since its original submission in July – specifically to maintain the majority of the existing trees on the site – and now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232.

233.

17/01566/CONDIT Door 4, 4 Montpellier Walk pdf icon PDF 174 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Oliver left the meeting at this point.

 

Councillor Seacome declared an interest and withdrew for the duration of the following debate.

 

 

Application Number:

17/01566/CONDIT

Location:

4 Montpellier Walk, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Variation of condition 5 of 16/01888/FUL - to extend opening hours to 00:30 Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and 01:00 on Bank Holiday Sundays, race days (up to 16 race days per calendar year), Christmas Day and New Years Eve

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

16

Update Report:

Additional representation

 

MJC introduced the application as above, saying it was submitted some time ago, and the hours have been negotiated down, following the input of environmental health officers.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Mason, due to neighbours’ concerns about loss of amenity.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Noori, applicant, in support

Co-owns Door 4 with his wife; it is managed by their son, and all are Montpellier residents.  All three are sensitive to noise or nuisance that may concern neighbours, and have taken on board their views, radically reducing the original proposed opening hours in response.  Sent letters to all neighbours to assure them of their intentions, and received a lot of positive feedback since, establishing an open channel for neighbours to get in touch with any views.  Have furthermore changed operations by stacking chairs and tables on the Montpellier Street site between 10 and 11pm and closing the door, so no one uses this side of the premises for outside sitting and drinking, thus keeping noise away from neighbours.  Live music only takes place on Thursday nights, and the hours have been changed from 8pm to 10pm instead of 11pm, as well as lowering the sound level in response to a neighbour’s request – again demonstrating the aim to be good neighbours and respect local views whilst maintaining business viability.  Have permission from the licensing authority until 1.00am, and any issues will be addressed by them on an ongoing basis.  Since the revised proposed opening hours, only two objections have been received, as well as two letters of support, so hopefully the original objections have been satisfied.  Environmental Health officers have approved the revised hours.  In the past few months, have had a significant reduction in late night business due to current 12am closing time,  Customers leave early and continue at neighbouring bars in Montpellier, where closing hours range from 1.00-2.00am, and 3.00am at Bar 131.  Is only asking for a fair opportunity – not even an equal opportunity, just a small share.  The original proposed 2.00am is now 12.30am, and 1.00am on race days and holidays – this is more than reasonable and shows that they care about neighbours’ views whilst trying to run a viable business and employ local people. 

 

Councillor Mason, in objection

Following the submission of the original application, a number of concerned residents contacted him; the proposed hours of business have now been reduced and the applicant has made concessions,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233.

234.

17/02022/FUL & LBC The Cheltenham Townhouse, 12-14 Pittville Lawn pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Seacome returned to the meeting at this point.

 

Councillor Lillywhite declared an interest and withdrew for the duration of the following debate.

 

 

Application Number:

17/02022/FUL &  LBC

Location:

The Cheltenham Townhouse, 12 - 14 Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham

Proposal:

17/02022/FUL - Change of use from C1 (hotel) to C3 (residential) to revert from guest house to two dwellings

17/02022/LBC - Alterations to convert guest house into two dwellings

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit / Grant

Committee Decision:

Permit / Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application as above.  It is at Committee because the proprietor of the hotel is a local councillor.  There are two applications – one for planning permission and one for listed building consent – and votes will need to be taken on both.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

BF:  has no objection to this.  The building is Grade II listed, and hopes that if a new door is needed, it will not be anything like the new door on the Grade I listed Ivy.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit 17/02022/FUL

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant 17/02022/LBC

12 in support – unanimous

GRANT

 

 

235.

17/02037/FUL 5 Bournside Road pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/02037/FUL

Location:

5 Bournside Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

9

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, in view of the number of objections from neighbours.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Goodlock, neighbour, in objection

Is representing residents at Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Bournside Road, all of whom have objected to this application.  Their issues may seem trivial compared with other applications on tonight’s agenda, but they are not minor to the residents of Bournside Road, many of whom have lived there for 30-40 years and have a deep affection for the area.  None are against house extensions – there are plenty in the road – but they are upset by the size of what is proposed at No. 5, which is why there are nine objections from people who have never objected to anything in their lives by felt compelled to comment on this.  The recommendation to approve is flawed, with over emphasis on the inclusion of a set-back from the front of the house.  Council policy is not just concerned with a set-back, but with ensuring that extensions are subservient, do not dominate the existing building or erode the space around it.  This proposal is massive, wide and deep.  It overwhelms the original house, and has a very large truncated crown roof hidden behind a dummy pitch roof at the back, because a roof with the correct pitch to the house would be ridiculously tall over an extension as wide as this.  However, because the materials and windows match, the officer says the proposal is ‘well-considered’.  The extension will be extremely prominent from Hatherley Park, is not good design, is a very wide and substantial addition that will completely erode the character of the existing house and the space to the side of it.   Residents of No. 3 will be most affected, mainly from the 14m two-storey side wall, just 1.5m from the boundary.  They will lose afternoon sun and also privacy with the Juliet balcony overlooking their garden.  The officer says there is a variety of houses and extensions in the road, it is not in a conservation area, and the house isn’t listed, implying that a lesser standard might be acceptable here.  This can’t be true – the NPPF is clear that good design is the key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute to making places better for people to live in.  At this end of the road, there is visual harmony – Nos. 5 and 7 are twin houses, and No. 10 is almost identical. Various features are echoed in other houses which create the charm and character of the area, and attractive views to the side through to Hatherley Park, which will be lost if this extension is built.  The extension should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 235.

236.

17/02348/TPO 92 Evesham Road pdf icon PDF 124 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/02348/CONF

Location:

92 Evesham Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Confirmation of TPO 751 Yew to the rear of 92 Evesham Road

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Order is confirmed

Committee Decision:

Order is confirmed

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

Public Speaking

Mr Charles Talbot, applicant, in objection

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak.  Originally submitted an application to fell this tree – it has outgrown its space, casts a wide shadow, but also gives rise to other concerns regarding safety.  The shade cast by the tree is the biggest issue, limiting the use of the garden, and this will only get worse.  Has discussed the option of pruning with the trees officer  -  this won’t help with the shade issue but it will significantly reduce the visual amenity of the tree.  It can only be seen from certain points on Central Cross Drive, and its removal will be largely unnoticed.  Has offered to plant an alternative tree in its place, but this offer has not been acknowledged. 

 

CC introduced the confirmation order which came about when the owner notified the council of his intention to fell the tree.  There was an opportunity to negotiate – to permit this, or to place a TPO on the tree.  Trees officers felt that the tree is significant enough in the area and in good enough health to be worthy of a TPO.  The owner objects to this, which is why CC has brought it to committee – to allow Members to decide on what they consider the best course of action.

 

 

Member debate

BF:  1.5m crown and side pruning would reduce the shading considerably.

 

PB:  is looking at the relationship between the tree and the house, and its view from different directions.  Can be seen to the south from Central Cross Drive, and appreciates that it causes some evening shading, but as a tree lover, will vote to support the trees officer’s recommendation.

 

Vote on recommendation to confirm order

12 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

ORDER IS CONFIRMED

 

237.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.    

 

 

The meeting ended at 9.40pm.