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

258.

Apologies

Minutes:

 

 Councillors Collins, Hobley and Savage.

259.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

 

 There were none.

260.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

 

 

i. 18/00127/FUL 21 Tivoli Road

Councillor Hay

 

ii. 18/003232/FUL Chapel Spa, North Place and 18/00215/TPO 8 Moorcourt Drive

Councillor Paul McCloskey

261.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

262.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 300 KB

Minutes:

 

 Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 15th February 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

263.

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

264.

18/00127/FUL & LBC 21 Tivoli Road pdf icon PDF 221 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

18/00127/FUL and LBC

Location:

21 Tivoli Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Extension and alteration of existing single storey garage block, and alterations to rear ground floor fenestration

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

 

 

MP introduced this application for works to a GII-listed detached property on the north-west side of Tivoli Road, which is situated in a conservation area. The application for full permission and listed building consent is detailed above; there have been several revisions to address the conservation officer’s concerns. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, due to the neighbour’s concerns about the impact of the proposed garage on the three windows to the side of his property. The recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Adam Fletcher, neighbour, in objection

Would like to reiterate his objection on diminished light grounds. Has been told by the officer that there are no grounds, as one window is the wrong type of glass, one is in the wrong place, and the third is shared. Members have visited and seen the impact the new building will have, not only on direct light but also on ambient and reflected light. That is a fact - even though no light survey or impact study has been done. Regarding the traffic, whether or not this is a problem depends on the vehicle numbers and types. The design will work with one or two cars, but will get difficult if it hits three; it is unfortunate that the drive is a first-in-last-out design. Regarding impact and amenity, this is the longest and highest construction to be built in the area in 52 years; is not an expert but feels that the frontage is abrupt, the main body dominating and the overall effect shape altering. Turning to the conservation argument, does not have enough experience or knowledge to form a meaningful take on the elements, but it has been pointed out that the garage falls within sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Local Development Framework for Tivoli. This seems to be the case – a conservation officer could confirm if it is. Leaving the final words to his late father - ‘Once the light is gone, it’s gone. That’s it’. There will be no opportunity to alter or modify once the work is done.

 

Mrs Nash, applicant, in support

Lives at 21 Tivoli Road with her husband and daughter. The existing garage is of poor construction, and is cold and damp. It has a corrugated metal roof and cladding on the side, with access via an unattractive metal door. It is too narrow, and detracts from the appearance of the house. Rebuilding it will enhance the house, and provide desperately needed space for a gym and to store her husband’s vintage car. The current garage is large enough for one car only. Her husband has early-onset arthritis and needs the gym; she and her daughter also like to keep fit. The new building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.

265.

18/00182/FUL 7 Victoria Street pdf icon PDF 187 KB

Minutes:

Application Number:

18/00182/FUL

Location:

7 Victoria Street Cheltenham Gloucestershire

Proposal:

Two storey rear extension

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

JS introduced the application as above, for a single storey ground floor extension and two storey first floor extension on a property in St Paul’s. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hobley, who is concerned that it may present an over development of a very small property/plot, and also by the potential for community imbalance caused by further HMOs in this area. He considers this a material consideration in light of the proposals currently out for consultation as part of the Cheltenham plan regarding an article 4 direction in St Pauls. Officers recognise this concern, but the recommendation is to refuse, due to the impact on the conservation area and on neighbouring residents.

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

Member debate:

None.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

13 in support

REFUSE

266.

18/00332/FUL Chapel Spa, North Place pdf icon PDF 135 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

18/00332/FUL

Location:

Chapel Spa, North Place, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Retention of dropped kerb (temporary permission granted 15/01208/FUL)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Temporary Permission for two years

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

5

Update Report:

None

 

 

MJC introduced the application as above. Temporary consent was granted two years ago, to drop the kerb for access to Warwick Place by staff of Chapel Spa. The area is fenced off, and the land owned by Chapel Spa. This application is for permanent consent, but the recommendation is for further temporary consent to enable further discussions regarding Portland Street re-development, without re-introducing another constraint to compromise further development of the site.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Louca, applicant, in support

Began by asking how a dropped kerb in front of Chapel Spa can effect Portland Street car park development? Needs the dropped kerb now, and in the future, if there is still a land swap. Was advised by planners to apply for the dropped kerb in 2015, but now, because they land swap did not go ahead, officers are recommending another temporary permission. Why was there no objection to the previous application but there is now? Nothing has changed with the Portland Street development; it has failed to secure a viable developer for the superb plan, which he would love to see developed. Neither Augur Buchler nor anyone else has objected to this proposal. The car park is leased for 35 years from March 2017, with five-yearly breaks – there are four years left before the first break, so if another two-year permission is granted, will have to apply twice more – which is unfair. This application isn’t about Portland Street or a land swap – it is simply an application for a dropped kerb in front of Chapel Spa. This is not the time or place to negotiate about what might or might not happen at Portland Street. Chapel Spa is an existing business, providing employment for 20 members of staff. Has a budget of £0.5million to carry out improvements, but will not go ahead with this in light of the present situation. Is fighting for a business that adds to the economic wealth of Cheltenham, and will not let CBC’s failure to bring forward a good development also kill his business by depriving him of the use of his land. This is not acceptable. All the information and evidence provided shows that he has been badly treated; is putting his faith in Members to end the abuse of power exercised against him and vote for a permanent dropped kerb.

 

Councillor Parsons, in support

Doesn’t usually have much to do with planning applications, but can think of few reports where the officer has shown less enthusiasm for what he is recommending. The bottom line is that if it wasn’t for the Portland Street development, this application would not be at Committee, and that development is not related to this application. The issue is the potential impact of this application on the Portland Street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 266.

267.

18/00215/TPO 8 Moorcourt Drive pdf icon PDF 130 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

18/00215/TPO

Location:

8 Moorcourt Drive

Proposal:

Yew - fell because of excessive shading and low amenity value. Replant with 3-4 fruit trees.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

The Chairman agreed to Item 4 on the Agenda being taken as Item 2, to allow the speaker to leave early

 

 

CC introduced the application as above, which comes to Committee with a recommendation to refuse. The tree has been there a long time and provides significant amenity on Pittville Circus Road. Has negotiated with the owner but is unable to agree on a way forward. Is therefore giving Members the opportunity to discuss and decide the outcome.

 

Public Speaking:

Ms Lauren Kemple, applicant, in support

Has three main points to make in support of her application: firstly, the tree is deadly poisonous, and she has three young children; secondly, it gives excessive shade, spoiling her family’s enjoyment of their garden; and thirdly, its removal will have little impact on Pittville Circus Road. Has three young children, and is concerned for their safety with the yew tree in their garden; the roots, bark, leaves and berries are all poisonous, even when dried and wilted; a small handful could kill a cow. Anyone who has ingested the poison shows no symptoms; they just die. Children put things in their mouths, and although it is unlikely that they will eat any part of the tree, the outcome would be catastrophic. The dark, dense foliage provides excessive shade in the garden, making the south corner an oppressive, dead area. Would like to plant fruit trees in its place, and would take specific advice on the species to plant. The tree cannot be seen from Pittville Circus Road, being set back from the boundary, and screened by holly bushes. The replacement fruit trees would be in keeping with Pittville Circus Road – rare varieties which would be pollinated by bees and inhabited by insects, making a positive impact on the environment. This tree has a massive impact on her family and anxiety levels. Its removal will be good for the environment, and have no impact on local amenity.

 

 

Member debate:

PB: visited the site. Feels very strongly about protecting Cheltenham’s trees – they are important, and the council plays a crucial role in protecting them. Came to Committee thinking he would vote to refuse this application, but having heard the speaker, has changed in mind. From a biodiversity point of view, the yew tree has limited value, and the thought of fruit trees, providing biodiversity, pleasure for the family, and peace of mind is an overpowering reason to permit the application to remove the tree. As long as there is a condition to replace it with fruit trees, will support the application to take it down. Will move to permit.

 

CH: a few trees down from this tree is another yew tree which is quite magnificent. The hollies in front of the yew tree of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 267.

268.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision