Agenda and minutes

Councillors Barnes* and McCloskey

*Councillor Baker chairing the meeting. 

18/01216/FUL Pittville Recreation Centre

Councillor Hobley – is a trustee of the Cheltenham Trust, but is likely to have left the meeting by this stage, due to another engagement.

18/00704/FUL Blenheim Villa, The Reddings

Councillor Cooke – is a member of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Cycling Campaign, which was submitted a late objection to this application.  Has not been party to any of the representations submitted by that group.

Councillor Fisher:  had to leave Planning View before getting to 17/00710/OUT Land adjacent to  Oakhurst Drive, so returned to view that site the following evening.

Councillor Seacome:  paid a second visit to 17/00710/OUT Land adjacent to Oakhurst Drive to reinforce what he had seen on Planning View. 

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 21^st June 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

EP introduced the application as above, advising Members that the work has already been carried out, creating an additional bedroom and en suite bathroom in the roof space.  If the dwellings were complete and occupied, this work would come under permitted development - this is the fall back position for the applicant and a material consideration in the decision-making process.  The application has been called to Committee by Councillor Collins, in view of neighbour objections to the proposal.

Public Speaking:

Mr McKie, secretary of The Reddings Residents Association, in objection

The Reddings Residents Association welcomes new development which complements the area, by adding amenity and prosperity to The Reddings; the B1 offices in the area are supported, and will hopefully bring some welcome higher-paid jobs.  The variation to this planning condition is different; a way of pushing through a scheme which would otherwise have been refused.  Looking at the application time line, TRRA, councillors and CBC were only aware of the developer’s intentions when an advertising board for 4-bedroomed luxury executive homes, displayed on the fencing soon after building work started.  This has now been taken down, but at best the sign was premature, at worst complacent  - and the properties are still being marketed as 4-bedroomed on the developer’s website.  This seems to be this developer’s modus operandi – it is not the first time he has adopted this route.  In this case he has attributed it to the good weather, which is rather convenient. The roof trusses for an attic room would have to be ordered well in advance, and even the foundation design would be different for this four-bedroomed proposal, rather than the three-bedroomed permissioned one.     The developer could have applied for variation a long time ago, and it was only the intervention of the   enforcement office and a councillor that made it necessary for him to do so.   Three four-bedroomed houses will place further strain on off-street parking; understands that the Council follows a general rule of thumb of two spaces and a garage for a four-bedroomed property; there  is not enough room  for garages on this site, so  where will the cars be parked?  This is critical for North Road East, now reduced to one lane only near the roundabout due to parked BMW staff vehicles. Additional parking on The Reddings will further limit visibility, with the ever-increasing through-flow traffic.  The chances of an accident will increase.  The developer’s own traffic survey is full of startling figures and anomalies – cars have been recorded doing in excess of 40, 50, 60mph, even during peak times; council figures, percentiles and statistics are no comfort to the family of those killed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 310.

VH introduced the application for the erection of two dwellings in part of the rear garden of Blenheim Villa.  The dwellings will each have four bedrooms, a double garage and two parking spaces.  They will be accessed via Grovefield Way, and will incorporate vehicle turning space in addition to the four parking spaces.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter, due to objections from The Reddings Residents Association.  A Gloucestershire Highways officer is present to answer highways questions. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Martin Zwart, Vice-Chairman of The Reddings Residents Association, in objection

There are a number of reasons why Reddings residents are objecting to this application, but the primary one is the increased risk to public safety.  In 1992, when Grovefield Way was built, it was clear that it would sever The Reddings, a village since 1560, with negative impacts, including on wildlife.  Tree planting and hedgerows were considered essential, to remove the visual impact, provide a sense of the original village, provide a replacement wildlife haven and mitigate against pollution caused by traffic fumes and noise.  Since then there has been a great deal of development in the area; residents were assured that the greenbelt boundary would be preserved and strongly defended along the line of Grovefield Way.  It has not - the park and ride, BMW, and further offices have had a severe impact on the tree screening and led to a severe increase in traffic volumes.   Traffic now backs up in the mornings, past the application site, creating noticeable fumes and noise pollution – councillors and residents are pressing strongly for pollution monitoring as it is thought to already exceed permissible limits. 

If the principal urban area opposite is extended  and further development and removal of trees takes place, the barrier protecting The Reddings will be eroded, as this application proposes to puncture it.  The hedge at the access to the proposed dwellings is 5m tall and 4 -6m deep.  It is mostly outside the curtilage of the site, so the occupants will not own or control it. It provides refuge for hedgehogs, foxes, birds and squirrels, adjacent to a national cycleway.     

Reddings residents were concerned that there were no notices around the site regarding this application, and that the applicant is proposing to fell and cut into the hedge which they do not own.  The drawings don’t show the full extent of this – they show 4.1m but it will need to be at least 8.5m wide to meet the pre-application advice of Highways.  It needs to cater for incoming and outgoing vehicles, including large vehicles such as refuse lorries, and there will need to be a reduction in thickness over a considerable distance to the create visibility splays - Gloucestershire  ...  view the full minutes text for item 311.

MP introduced the application as above, for a minor material amendment.  Planning permission was granted last year for major remodelling and extension of this house.  The proposed amendments do not make a substantial difference to the approved scheme, and will not cause any harm to neighbouring amenity.  The application is at Committee for transparency because the applicant is a member of the senior management team at CBC.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MP introduced the application as above, for 90 dwellings, to include 40% affordable, seeking approval for the access, layout and scale, with matters relating to appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration.  A challenging application.  Specialist reports.  Competing issues – not unusual.  Balanced decision – affordable housing tipped the balance.  At Committee at request of Councillors Babbage and Savage, and due to objections from the Parish Council and Historic England.

Public Speaking

Mr Trevor Gander, Cheltenham Flood and Drainage Panel, in objection

The key risks for flooding in Cheltenham are surface water run-off and poor drainage, due to old drainage infrastructure.  These risks are covered by only two paragraphs in the flood risk assessment with this application. The LLFA and planning officer are telling Members it is OK to approve this proposal on the basis that they will check details later and make sure they are OK. The LLFA actually says a decided SUDS plan could be presented – suggesting that the FRA is not fit for purpose.   The development at Leckhampton View used the same drainage consultants – Simpson Associates Ltd – who used the same drainage model to calculate the surface water run-off (micro-drainage), and the same inputs for rainfall, which  do not reflect the average for Cheltenham or the storm water rainfall we have experience of here.  These inputs were not looked at or challenged in the process of approval. CBC approved the scheme – and subsequently six houses and four sites were flooded.  The LLFA reviewed what had happened, and stated that the FRA had not taken account of overland surface water flowers, that attenuation was inadequate, and exceedance was not properly controlled.  All of this risk is present in the current FRA.  JCS Policies INF1 and INF2 say that CBC and the County should ensure that all new development reduces flood risk – that does not happen here.  It states that structures such as the one proposed here should be monitored for effectiveness and the drainage tank should be maintained  over the lifetime of the development.  This has not been requested, and there have been no challenges by the LLFA on the lack of these key details, preferring to leave them offline, beyond the gaze of public scrutiny, for some ‘experts’ to make the same mistakes again.  It is time the Council used people like his panel to give an independent view of what is right or wrong.  The FR is totally inadequate and unsafe.  The application can be refused on Local Plan Policy CP4 and JCS Polices INF1 and INF2.    

Mr David Partridge, Simpsons Associates Ltd, in support

Speaks as a chartered engineer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 313.

Councillor Hobley left the meeting at this point

EP introduced the application as above, at Committee because the Council is the applicant.

Public Speaking:

None

Member debate:

None

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 9.25pm.