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

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Atherstone, Flynn and McCloskey. Councillor Parsons was acting as substitute for Councillor McCloskey.

2.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

18/01004/FUL : Land at North Road West and Grovefield Way Cheltenham

Councillor Collins declared an interest in agenda item 6a as he had attended a meeting with the residents association with a representative of the developer.

 

18/01318/FUL: Little Priory, Mill Street

Councillor Payne declared an interest in agenda item 6b as he intended to speak in support the application. He would therefore withdraw from the chamber and not participate in the vote on this application.

3.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Oliver visited Oakfield Street, Regent Arcade and Little Priory.

4.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

5.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 230 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED THAT

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September were approved and signed as a correct record.

6.

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

7.

18/01004/FUL Land at North Road West and Grovefield Way pdf icon PDF 705 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

 

 

JS introduced the application as above, with a recommendation to approve for reasons set out in the report and report update. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter.

 

Public Speaking:

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

His key concerns were largely around the proposed A1 use which would generate considerably increased traffic low 7 days a week as opposed to the B1 office development which would likely be confined to operating at capacity 5 days per week. A1 use would result in increased noise and air pollution at the weekends and the evenings and prevent residents being able to spend time in their gardens, open windows, cause issues for children sleeping and inhibit their ability to participate in recreational activities such as cycling. He noted that the 3m high louvered panels designed to screen the roof heating and cooling plant would be extremely unsightly and the 2m deep embankment would only seek to exacerbate these negative effects. The development would be contrary to the JCS with regards to its adverse impact on residents in terms of emissions, noise, odour and visual amenity and non- compliant with the NPPF as a result of its negative effects on noise, air and light pollution. As the development contravenes the national and local policies, he requested that the application either be refused or at the least deferred until proper consultation had taken place.

 

Paul Fong, local businessman addressed the committee. He endorsed the officer report but wished to raise the following points with Members. He was a local businessman and this proposal affected the development of his business. He expressed concern at the lack of any land and buildings available for business needs in the town and as a result businesses were leaving the town in order to find suitable accommodation. He believed this situation would destroy the economic prosperity of the town. He stated that the original application had been granted in 2007 and nothing had changed since then despite the JCS being in place. He highlighted that there was extremely limited office space, just 5000 sq.m in total in the town which was insufficient. He acknowledged that strategic sites at West Cheltenham and North West Cheltenham would create space but this was some way  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

18/01318/FUL & LBC Little Priory, Mill Street pdf icon PDF 160 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

EP introduced the application and explained that the property was a grade II listed dwelling on Mill Street. It was also located within the Prestbury Conservation Area. The applicant was seeking both planning permission and listed building consent to block up an existing access and create a new, wider vehicular access onto the highway. This address had a similar application for a new access refused in 2015, as it was considered to have a harmful impact on the heritage of the dwelling and highway safety. Refusal on the basis of conservation grounds remained. The application was being brought to planning committee at the request of Councillor John Payne.

Public Speaking:

Susan Blair, applicant

The property was purchased in 2004 and she was well aware of the property’s historical and conservation significance. They had invested significantly in the property in terms of its restoration, working closely with the conservation officer. This included replacing the poor extension. She had engaged experts in order to respect the high standards commensurate with the listed status of the property and the conservation area. She informed Members that the existing access to the property was not safe. By changing the location of the access and the size this would be more safe and useable in terms of being able to drive in forward to the new parking area. It would also be to the benefit of the neighbourhood by removing cars off Mill Street. In addition, it would improve the visual character of the existing boundary wall which had changed over time as this would be repointed with lime mortar replacing the current cement. The access would not be glaringly noticeable from the road and cars would access via sliding gates, similar to those at neighbouring properties. She cared very much about the conservation of the property and making these changes would make it fit for dailyuse.

 

Councillor John Payne

Speaking in support of application

He believed it provided a satisfactory solution to enable off street parking but also recognised the considerable efforts the applicant had gone to when extending the grade II listed Little Priory. As Members would have seen on planning view the extension was not only of exemplary design but had been executed with consummate skill. He explained that the application represented the final phase of the development of the application site, i.e. the provision of an entrance. At the start of this development advice was sought from Gloucestershire Highways as to the viability of the new vehicle entrance, subject to a planning application highways had no objections and so the extension to the main house was designed, which included the demolition of the garage. Councillor Payne explained that the first application was refused following objections from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

18/01620/FUL Wellesbourne, Oakfield Street pdf icon PDF 241 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

18/01620/FUL

Location:

Wellesbourne, Oakfield Street 

Proposal:

Single storey rear extension (part Retrospective)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

5

Update Report:

 

GD introduced the application as above with a recommendation to approve for reasons set out in the report. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman.

Public Speaking:

Miss Vincent, neighbour in objection

She reported that when she had come back off holiday in July, she discovered that the extension had been built. The applicant had not submitted any plans, nor afforded her the opportunity to consider the design before the work commenced. The neighbours to the right had also not been served with a Party Wall Agreement. The objector was shocked by the speed and size of the building which was very invasive. She advised that once the applicant did retrospectively submit plans, they did not reflect what had been built and the extension was 300mm higher and so revised plans had to be submitted. She questioned the applicant’s credibility given the fact he had been a Building Contractor for over 20 years. Miss Vincent explained that she had no problem with the applicant wanting to build an extension but had issues with the design; she noted Local Plan policy CP4 which seeks to ensure that new developments do not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. Her issue was with the side elevation, which is around 3.5m and has bi-fold doors that face her property.

 

The side elevation is also less than a metre from the boundary of her property. She felt that the glass being used was irrelevant and that during the summer months the doors will be open, encroaching on her own home. She reported that the recent extensions in the immediate vicinity all have solid wall side elevations. Whilst she accepted that Tivoli is a dense and compacted grid of terraced houses she still felt residents were entitled to reasonable privacy. She urged the Committee to not allow the applicant’s plan to be the new blueprint for this special Conservation area and requested that at the very least the committee instruct the applicant to brick up the side elevation as a faircompromise.

 

MC: Found it difficult to see how the applicant believed the extension to fall under permitted development, particularly given that by trade he was an experienced building contractor. He queried whether officers would have permitted the extension if it had come before them as a new application.

 

DB: Also very unhappy about the retrospective planning permission. She felt that the extension had an unsightly chunk of roof and was unhappy about the glass side elevation.

 

PB: Sympathised with the neighbour and agreed that the large opening doors on the side elevation infringed on her property and would be a particular problem during the summer months when they would likely be open. Suggested that the application be deferred and a conversation be had with the applicant, neighbour and officers to find a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

18/01630/FUL Unit 30, Regent Arcade pdf icon PDF 272 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

18/01630/FUL

Location:

Regent Arcade  

Proposal:

Alterations to, and conversion of, Unit 30 to create 3no. ground floor restaurants (Class A3), 1no. ground floor retail unit (Class A1), and 1no. basement leisure operation unit (Class D2). Demolition of existing rooftop conservatory and erection of 1no. two storey rooftop restaurant (Class A3) with a new street level entrance from Regent Street. Installation of rooftop plant. New repurposed entrance to the car park with vertical access and new passenger lift. Alterations to the Ormond Place entrance together with works to the public realm along part of Regent Street and Ormond Place to include resurfacing works and raising the carriageway to provide a shared surface for vehicles and pedestrians and installation of associated street furniture.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

4

Update Report:

Officer Update Report

 

MP introduced the application as above. It is at the committee as the request of Councillor Sudbury and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Bell, Architect, in support

Provided an overview of the proposed development on behalf of the Regent Arcade Trust and landlords of the shopping centre. He advised that the property had been vacant since July 2016 following the demise of BHS. He acknowledged the problems being experienced by traditional High Street retailers and the strategic shift in the shopping habits of potential customers. Thus, he explained that Town centres needed to develop a broader mix of uses to continue to be attractive to customers. The proposal comprises three elements, namely the sub-division of the BHS premises, a new entrance feature to Regent Arcade and a new public realm design to improve pedestrian access along Ormond Place and Regent Street. The division of Unit 30 would provide 3 restaurants facing Regent Street, a part ground floors and basement 6 screen cinema and a rooftop restaurant together with a circa 80000 sq ft A1 retail unit within regent Arcade shopping mall. The elevation facing Regent Street would provide an attractive, open and lively façade with external seating and planting on the pavement. He explained that the new Ormond Place entrance would have a stone portico framing a double height glazed window feature. This would provide a focal point from the Promenade and improve customer flow to the existing Ormond Place and Regent Street retailers. The new public realm works would also provide a pedestrian level access from the Promenade to Ormond Place which would vastly improve accessibility. Mr Bell advised that they had worked closely with Cheltenham planners and Gloucester Highways in developing the application and confirmed that they agreed with all the proposed conditions, except for Condition 7 which referred to opening hours. He explained that restricting closing hours to 11:00pm would inhibit his client’s ability to attract tenants to the newly created unit, and prevent legal tenancy agreements being completed. This would be particularly evident in the case of the cinema who may wish to do late screenings. He, therefore, requested that consideration be given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

18/01770/FUL & LBC St Mary's Mission, High Street pdf icon PDF 352 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

18/01770/FUL

Location:

St Mary’s Mission, High Street 

Proposal:

Installation of a roof mounted flagpole to the front elevation of St Marys Mission to display the recently awarded 2018 Green Flag for Winston Churchill Memorial Garden

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit & Grant

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

 

EP introduced the application as above. The application is at planning committee as Cheltenham Borough Council is the applicant and the recommendation is to permit.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

12.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision