Agenda and minutes

Councillors Hobley, Hegenbarth and Collins. 

18/01129/FUL 6 Wards Road

All members of the LibDem group declared a personal but not prejudicial interest – the applicant’s wife is known to them, as treasurer of the LibDem Group in Cheltenham.

18/01129/FUL 6 Wards Road

Councillors Fisher, Payne, Flynn, Cooke, Barrell and McCloskey all visited the site independently (there was no Planning View this month, due to the single-item agenda).  Councillor Barnes is familiar with the site from the previous application in 2016.

There were none. 

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th July 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following corrections:

i.                    Page 20, last line of paragraph 3

‘MC: …Notes the comments of the Environment Agency – worked there with the EA for ten years, and isn’t sure what they are supposed to do.’

ii.                  Page 27, before item 18/01216/FUL Pittville Recreation Centre

Insert:  Councillor Hobley left the meeting at this point and amend subsequent vote accordingly to 13 in support, not 14. 

In addition, Councillor McCloskey made the following points: 

-       wasn’t present at the July meeting, but was particularly concerned to read about the application at Cotswold View, The Reddings, to make three 3-bedroomed houses into three 4-bedroomed houses by way of permitted development, and the way in which this is presumed to happen and being used by developers.  Feels this is a worrying trend, and some discussion between members and officers is needed;

-       at the June meeting, under AOB, made the point that most of the applications on the agenda had history and several of the sites had been considered at Planning Committee before; suggested it would be helpful if the paperwork were to be more reflective of this.  Officers agreed to look into this.  Wonders what practical action may have bee taken between the June meeting and tonight, when another application with recent history is being considered. 

Before the start of the evening’s business, Councillor Barnes thanked Councillors Hobley and Baker for chairing the last two meetings in his absence – they clearly did an excellent job. 

EP introduced the application to construct a lift shaft on the front elevation of the house, to allow access to the second floor for the disabled occupant of the house.  Officers have strong concerns about the design and appearance of the proposal, which they do not consider to be outweighed by the circumstances of the applicant.  A similar application for a smaller lift shaft was approved in 2016; officers recommended refusal but this was overturned at Committee  and permitted with the addition of an S106 agreement to remove the lift extension when it is no longer needed.  In view of the background of this application, officers felt it should come to Committee for a final decision.

Public Speaking:

Councillor McKinlay, in support

Trusts that Members have read the submission from the agent, setting out the justification for this application.  The medical requirements of the applicant are outlined, but will not repeat the detail here, as it is not a matter for public discussion.  The officer report states that there have been no responses from local residents in objection; the agent states that all local residents are supportive of the proposal.  The reason why the lift has to be external and not internal is that there is not sufficient space inside for a lift to accommodate a large wheelchair and allow any moving space.  The officer report and Members’ own experience confirm that this is a very similar application to the one considered in October 2016 – that received unanimous support from Members, and the principle of an external lift shaft is therefore approved.  This application presents some minor changes – the officer report states at Para. 6.8 that this proposal is slightly larger than the approved scheme in each dimension and will be finished with a  different material.   This increase is due solely to the fact that the size of the lift has increased marginally and wouldn’t fit the previously approved dimensions.  The increase is 30cm-50cm. 

Is slightly confused that the officer report refers to ‘different material’ being proposed,  as in May 2018 an application was submitted to amend the previously approved materials to the black rock panel cladding which is proposed in this application, and this was approved.  There is  no change in material, so assumes this is a typing error? 

Is not disputing there is a clash with JCS Policy SD4 and Local Plan Policy CP7 - this was known two years ago, when the previous permission was granted, but Members felt that the special circumstances overrode this.  There has also been no objection from local residents.  At Para. 6.12 of the report, the officer states  ...  view the full minutes text for item 323.