Agenda and minutes

Councillors Barnes, Baker, Atherstone, Flynn.   Hegenbarth, Fisher, Collins.

There were none.

i.    Councillor McCloskey – unable to attend Planning View, so visited all the sites at the weekend.

ii. Councillor Sudbury – as late substitute, did not go on Planning View, but is familiar with or has previously visited the following sites: 

-        Stables, Hyde Lane

-        68 Sandy Lane

-        66 Townsend Street

-        Regent Arcade

iii.  Councillor Hobley - unable to attend Planning View,  but knows or has previously visited:

-        66 Townsend Street

-        46 Queens Road

-        Regent Arcade

There were none. 

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 24^th May 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

NJ:  In the absence of both the Chair and Vice-Chair, and under Rule 9 of the Constitution, would invite Members to nominate another Member to Chair the meeting.

RH:  nominates Councillor Hobley.

Vote on RH’s nomination of Councillor Hobley to chair the meeting

9 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

CARRIED

DS:  has KH had the necessary briefing to act as Chair?

NJ:  he has.

DS:  in which case, the vote was a coronation rather than an election.  With no disrespect to KH, feels this should be dealt with in a different way. 

MP introduced this application for 13 dwellings on a parcel of land at the end of Stone Crescent, to include five affordable units.  The proposal has been amended re. housing size and lay-out, with the latest revised plans submitted after the Agenda was published.  Members will recall the application was deferred from the April agenda, to allow further discussion, but this has not produced a revised scheme which Officers can support.  The recommendation therefore remains to refuse, for the reasons set out in the report:  20/4 outline; S106 lead agreement not complete; no decisions/ access.  County council application.    The application is at Committee due to a previous commitment to Members to bring future applications to Planning Committee. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Patel, neighbour, in objection

Represents the views of residents who object to this development, and do not feel that the developer has engaged with or provided them with any assurance that their daily lives will not be negatively impacted, despite claims to have done so.  Main objections centre on:  significant increases in traffic; negative impact on parking; accessibility issues; health and safety issues increasing the potential for traffic-related incidents to occur; HMOs and the lack of affordable housing; and localised flooding.  The development will only be accessible via a single entry/exit point; the area already suffers high levels of congestion, and this will be heavily impacted by the increase in traffic.  There will be fewer car parking spaces available – at least 39 more vehicles, which will increase exponentially if dwellings are HMOs, causing overspill into the existing estate. 

With narrow roads, no real turning areas, and overgrown hedges in Wharfdale Square, renowned for blocking drivers’ vision, all manner of vehicles currently have a hard time getting round.  Construction vehicles will experience the same, causing major obstructions, inconvenience and health and safety issues.  Inconsiderable parking by parents on the school run is a daily problem, with residents often forced to drive on the wrong side of the road – another health and safety issue.  With no pavements in Wharfdale Square, pedestrians – including young children – often have to walk in the road.  ‘Near misses’ are already a common occurrence, and with the increase in traffic flow, the safety issues will increase.

There are already significant numbers of HMOs in the are, and the type of dwellings being proposed will increase this number; only a token gesture of them could be considered as affordable housing. 

The area already suffers from localise flooding, and the development will increase the area covered by impermeable materials, causing an increase in the quantity and rate of surface water and flooding.

To close, the future of the area and its community is very important  ...  view the full minutes text for item 295.

MP introduced the application as above, for the erection of a single dwelling on a site in the green belt, with much of the site outside the principal urban area (PUA).  Permission was granted in 2016 for the stable to be converted into two dwellings; during the conversion, the walls collapsed, making it impossible for that permission to be completed.  This proposal has the same footprint, height and massing, but is in conflict with JCS Policy SD10, as much of the site is outside the PUA.  However, in this instance officers consider that the recent grant of planning permission is a material consideration which outweighs this.  The application is at Committee at the request of the two ward councillors, Councillor Fisher and Councillor Clucas, and also the Parish Council..

Public Speaking:

Mr Trainor, applicant, in support

Thanked officers for their handling of the matter, working with the applicant throughout, and resulting in a well-balanced report and recommendation to permit.  The circumstances leading to this application are set out in the officer report – will not repeat them – but the revised design will have the same footprint, mass and scale as the previous proposed conversion, with a higher quality of design, both of the building and the landscaping.  It is supported by the Architects Panel.  Will ensure that it is implemented correctly, and respectfully requests that the Committee permit the proposal.  

Councillor Clucas, in objection

Councillor Fisher is on mayoral duty – would otherwise be present to join the debate.  In 2016 there was an application for the renovation of the existing stable building, which would have preserved the levels of the building, and ensured it was properly constructed in keeping with the green belt; there was, at that time, no JCS.  Parish councils, county councils, committees all asked to protect as much of the green belt as possible.  The previous application stated that the building was structurally OK to be renovated; an engineer report confirmed this, and it was stated that the slab was to be protected.  Some months ago, the application was permitted by a narrow majority, with Members still concerned about its effect on green belt.  Subsequently, Councillor Fisher was in the area, noticed that ground work being done, and that the slab which should have been maintained was ripped up and levels changed.  As this was clearly a breach of the planning application, contacted planning officers. The breach of condition was confirmed, and later officers stated applicant would have to re-apply.  Is therefore staggered by recommendation to permit this new luxury dwelling. 

Paragraph 7 of the objection from the Parish Council is meaningful, concise, and apposite.  They consider that the application violates the green belt, and that if it proceeds it will have an effect on other areas of green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 296.

GD introduced the application as above, with a recommendation to permit, for reasons set out in the report.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Seacome, in view of the high level of neighbour concerns.

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

None. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

MP introduced the application 18/00681/FUL as above, at Committee because it is not supported by the Architects Panel.  The second application, 18/00700/ADV, has been brought to Committee for completeness.  There have been various revisions throughout the process and officers feel it is now a better scheme.  Their recommendation is therefore to permit. 

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

PM:  is not so worried about the design  but rather more about the conditions, if permitted. The council is about to spend thousands on repairing the High Street; the repairs to the front of the Regent Arcade may interfere with the newly-laid road and pavement surfaces.  If the footpath is going to be changed, we should ensure that the road surface is put in afterwards, and thus remains pristine.

KS:  it’s very good that the Regent Arcade is planning ahead and revitalising its frontage, but is disappointed in the proposed design.  It doesn’t seem to go together – the bottom panels of glass are shorter than the ones above – is not entirely happy with this and would like to see something better.   It doesn’t have to compete with John Lewis, and it’s a shame the designer couldn’t sort out the proportions better and come up with something more harmonious.

JP: the management of the Regent Arcade has been forced into upgrading by other retail development in the town.  The whole purpose of any shop front is to attract people in, but this doesn’t really do that.  It is the Regent Arcade – yet there is no reference to this in the design.  It is bland and poorly proportioned, and does no favours to the High Street.  Can’t imagine we won’t be back in three years with Version 3.  The present façade has not been well-maintained – it is in a terrible state, and doesn’t attract people in.  This is a missed opportunity  -  something far more attractive is needed.

SC:  understands why the Regent Arcade wants to do this – to attract more people in – and this is to be commended.  Is concerned about the large window above the doors; it will look like so many other shopping malls in the country, and doesn’t do justice to this prime location in Cheltenham.  The existing façade has a classic elegance, and sort of echoes what was there years ago – the Plough Inn.  Further along the High Street, the Regency columns of the bank building reflect a design theme appropriate to a Regency town such as Cheltenham.  This proposal would be a mistake – just another High Street shopping mall - and is a missed opportunity to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 298.

See Item 6d – 18/00681/FUL Regent Arcade – for combined report. 

See 18/00681/FUL, above. 

This application is being dealt with under delegated powers. 

GD introduced the application as above, a revised scheme following the refusal of a previous scheme last November.  The recommendation is to permit, for reasons set out in the report, and the application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hobley, in view of neighbours’ concerns. 

Public Speaking:

None.  Having requested a Committee decision, KH confirmed that he would make some brief comments as ward member.

Member debate:

DS:  considers this can only be a good thing for the area – it will tidy up a building in poor condition.  We have been assured that, instead of being an additional bedroom for an HMO, the space to the side will be a garage – can there be a condition preventing it from being converted into another bedroom?  The proposal is for a three-bedroomed house not a six-bedroomed one.  As such, will vote in support.

KH:  a number of residents got in touch about this application, raising concerns about this property.  Explained to them that a lot of these objections could not be considered as relevant planning grounds for refusing the application, which has been very frustrating for the neighbours and for himself.  Neighbours are largely concerned with anti-social behaviour, which is likely to increase if the application is granted – but this is not a planning matter.  Has great sympathy with these neighbours in tightly-packed areas, and is concerned that the proposed garage may not accommodate a car.  Consideration for this has been made by officers, with a condition that the garage can only be used for a car and ancillary domestic storage.  If a condition could be included to prevent the garage from being made into a bedroom, we would need to ensure no internal door between the house and the garage at this stage.  Also ask for a committee decision as the neighbours asked for opportunity to speak – although they have chosen not to do so, as is their right.  Members also as many know that St Paul’s has problems with a proliferation of HMOs, which needs some sort of management.  Agrees by and large with DS, that this will be an improvement on what is there at the moment.  Has concerns about what will happen in long run but not for Committee tonight. 

JP:  as a point of education, and having no queries about this particular extension, what is the logic for always requiring that extensions are set 1m back from the pavement, when the space could be better used within the extension?  Understands this has something to do with the need to be able to ‘read’ the original building – which might not be quite so clear otherwise?

KS:  regarding a possible garage condition: if we require it is used for parking only, will that be enforceable?  How will we know if the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 301.

BH introduced the application as above, for planning permission for changes to a recently-approved scheme, originally a first floor front and single storey rear extension, first floor side extension, and remodelling of the property.  Permission for the majority of the works has been granted, and the current application is only concerned with the changes – the increase of approximately 400mm in the height of the first floor, and removal of fascia, guttering and cladding.  The application is part retrospective, as the first floor front extension has already been built at the height now being applied for.  It is at committee for transparency, as a senior staff member at CBC lives next door.  The officer recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Atkins, neighbour, in objection

Is the owner of the property most affected by these changes, and frustrated to be making formal representations about a development not built to the consent granted.  At Committee last year, it was clear that the proposal would have considerable impact, but Members were advised that with careful control over detailed design and materials, a high-quality scheme would be delivered.  On this basis, they agreed to permit it.    The scheme has not been delivered with the careful execution required.  Understands that the new scheme is assessed as a new application, and therefore feel it fails to meet the council’s policy requirements as follows:  firstly, visual impact – this is an attractive, prominent corner plot, highly visible on a road used by many walkers and residents.  The increase of 0.5m results in an over-dominant extension, which   detracts from the street scene.  The extension becomes the focal point of the plot and breaks the roofline of he existing house.  Officers accept that this is an awkward relationship, but Policy CP7 requires a high standard of design, and this falls short of that. Supplementary planning guidance requires extensions to be subservient, not detract, and play a supporting role, but it is clear that the enlarged forward box of this extension is not subservient  - policy requirement is therefore not fulfilled, and this is not addressed in the report, although it was highlighted in two other reports of residential extensions on tonight’s agenda.  Secondly, loss of amenity:  on site visit, Members will have noticed that the additional height of the extension has impacted the light entering her kitchen – the obscure-glazed side window is the only direct light source.  Through-light from other secondary windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 302.

PM:  notes that every Agenda item tonight has a previous history, and has found it useful to look back at the previous minutes when reading the papers.  It is sometime difficult to find the relevant minutes, and would be helpful if these could be included, where proposals have been discussed previously.

DS:  agrees that this is a good idea.

SW:  there would need to be a reference or link to the previous application.

DP:  this won’t tell Members where the minutes are.

CH, in response:

-       in the body of report, there is always a list of constraints, planning history, reference numbers, dates of decisions which Members can refer to.

KH:  a link would be useful for Members using an i-pad, or inclusion of the previous minutes in the report or agenda – just a thought.

CH, in response:

-       officers will take this into consideration.

The meeting ended at 8.55pm.