Agenda and minutes

Councillors Barnes, McCloskey, Hobley and Hegenbarth (LibDem)

Councillor Payne (PAB)

i.              18/01940/FUL Garages to the rear of Mercian Court

Councillor Barrell – is a member of SPJARA committee, but not involved in any discussions about planning applications.

i.         18/01776/FUL Cromwell Court; 18/01940/FUL Garages to the rear of Mercian Court

Councillor Fisher visited both these sites independently.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th October 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction: 

Page 4, Paragraph 3, line 7

-: …….He reported that they had lost 3000 30,000 sq. ft of office space to residential in the town…

Officer introduction:

EP reminded Members that this application was at Committee last month and was deferred, due to concerns over the scheme, in particular the bi-fold doors to the side elevation.  The applicant has revised the scheme, replacing the bi-fold doors with non-opening glazing, to be fixed shut.  This will avoid potential noise and disturbance from the doors being open and shut, and the officer recommendation is therefore to permit.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

Is sorry that this application is back at Committee this evening.  Had hoped that last month’s decision would lead to a dialogue which should have taken place in the summer, before the extension was built without planning permission, and a solution fair to all parties could be found. There has been no negotiation or discussion, just an email from the case officer advising what the applicant intends to do. Members expressed significant concerns about the development and its impact at the last meeting, but none of the issues have been addressed by the applicant – the only alteration to the design is that the side windows will not be openable.  However, as the case officer states, a current or future owner could apply to remove the condition in order for these windows to become openable.  And with the large opening in the side elevation, there is nothing stopping anyone from opening the windows and turning them into bi-fold doors at any time – will live in anticipation of being in the same position all over again, needing the Committee or Enforcement Officer, if the work were to be done without permission, to protect her privacy.  This is not an acceptable solution, and cannot feel reassured by the current proposal in any way. 

Is at a loss to understand the necessity for 3.5m floor to ceiling windows in a side elevation, one metre from a 6ft fence.  How much light will this achieve?  There are other ways to maximise light without affecting neighbouring amenity.  This is the wrong design for a terrace.  There should be no glazing, bi-fold doors or large windows in a side elevation close to neighbour’s amenity space.  Its size, height, thickness and overhang of the roof less than 1m from her boundary, add cumulatively to the unacceptable impact of the development.  It fails Local Plan policies CP4 and CP7.  Asks Members to refuse the application, and not let this inconsiderate development set a poor precedent for the area.

Mr Potente, applicant, in support

Has 45 years’ experience in the building industry, and has gained respect and a reputation for working with honesty and integrity for a number of major companies.Has many glowing references which support and confirm this, and can be considered as testament of his professionalism and good character.  Has worked alongside these architects, designers, surveyors and project managers,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Officer introduction:

MP informed Members that the application is for two new retail units following the demolition of a vacant industrial unit, and the application site also includes part of Kingsditch Industrial Estate in Malmesbury Road.  The two units will be situated between M&S Home and M&S Foodhall, creating 2,138 square metres of new retail floor space.  Officers are satisfied that the land will retain its employment use, in accordance with the emerging Local Plan, and that the design is appropriate within the context.  Highways officers have raised no objections.  The application is at Committee because of an objection from Swindon Village Parish Council. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Sobic, agent, in support

Would echo the officer’s comments, and request that Committee approve the proposal.  The applicants have worked positively with officers at pre-app stage and throughout the application, to ensure the most appropriate development.  All technical consultees consider the proposal to be acceptable, including the Architects’ Panel, which considers it to be better use of the existing space, and an enhancement of the area.  The proposal complies with all retail/employment policies.  There is a strong demand for retail floor space and new retail stores, and this will assist in meeting that need.  The matters raised by the parish council have been addressed; the proposal doesn’t harm the neighbouring premises, which are also owned by the applicant.  The scheme has regenerative benefits, representing an investment in Cheltenham of £1.75m, offering 32 full- and part-time jobs, contributing £650k in wage generation, and approximately £380k in business rates for the council.  To sum up, it is a well-designed proposal, with positive benefits, will improve the site, finish the retail park, and provide employment for Cheltenham.

Member debate:

PB:  considers this an excellent application.  It will enhance that end of the retail estate – was amazed how busy it was, even on a Tuesday afternoon when Members visited on Planning View.  It will be a real boost, bring additional business rates to the town.  A condition is included to ensure the new stores cannot have uses which will conflict with town centre uses.  The scheme has his full support.  Notes the officer comment about trees. 

SC:  also considers this a good scheme, and an improvement to the site.  Would just like to make a comment, in view of the officer description and several comments referring to alternative means of travel.  This type of development is a car destination.  There is mention of alternative ways of travel, but this is the type of place most people will go to by car.  It is a pity that more effort is not made to make this sort of development more attractive and easy to use for non-drivers.  For cyclists, it is unwelcoming; for pedestrians, it is very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Officer introduction:

EP said this is an application for a ground and lower ground floor extension at 76 Hales Road.  The officer has sought revisions to the original scheme, and now feels that the design is acceptable and impact on neighbouring properties minimal.  The application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Jordan.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

Is generally not against anyone improving their homes, and believes they should be allowed to do so; does not like being a difficult neighbour.  However, this proposal will impact on neighbours at 29 Kings Road and two other adjacent properties, by its scale, proximity, and impact on light levels, as well as the impact in conservation area.  Firstly, it is a large and high extension, close to his property – 4.5m high, extending 2.2m, 0.5m from the boundary with his property – an imposing edifice, which he considers to be overly large and bulky, and inappropriate in design.  Some changes have been made to the original proposal, but the extension is still very large.  Secondly, the proposal will impact on his patio and seating area which will be overlooked.  The proposed cedar cladding will not mitigate this.  The officer report states that there is already an element of overlooking between the application site and the neighbouring property and extending 2m further into the site will not make the impact any worse.  Disagrees with this – the privacy of his living space will be compromised, and not feel like his own space any more – and there will be loss of light and loss of privacy.  Finally, the buildings are in a conservation area, and should be preserved and enhanced.  Both his own and the applicant’s houses are in a prominent position in the conservation area, close to No. 80 which is identified a historically significant in the Sydenham Character Appraisal and Management plan.  Development should enhance and preserve the area, but the proposal will appear out of place, includes uPVC windows of a different style to the original, and could undermine some established and thriving trees.

Member debate:

BF:  the objector has made a lot of points about loss of light.  Can officers confirm that the proposal passes the light test in every position?

EP, in response:

-       With regard to the neighbour’s basement, the existing structure already results in a failure of the light test.  However, the neighbour’s ground floor accommodation passes the light test.

SC:  looking at the drawings doesn’t give a true impression of the height above the ground of the proposed extension.  It is a large, looming building for the neighbour, not only in his basement, but also on the ground floor.  This is a very, very large structure a few metres from the boundary.  Has great sympathy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Officer introduction:

JS introduced the application as above, referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey.  The recommendation is to permit, for the reasons set out in the officer report. 

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

SW:  originally did not think much of this application, but on seeing the building on Planning View, and how it was to be sub-divided, felt it to be a really good use of big property, providing much better accommodation for more people.

BF:  it says in the report that parking for residents will be located on the existing hardstanding to the front of the building, but is there any additional parking?  There could be 16 cars, two per flat.  This is a large building, although not listed – when it was built, it was the largest property in Cheltenham since World War II.  A lot of work has been done at the site without planning permission, which planning enforcement officers are following up, but does not feel this proposal is the right thing to do with a house of this proportion, in the AONB.  It should be preserved as a single dwelling – this would do less harm than converting it to eight dwellings.

JS, in response:

-       Space exists for a large number of cars; the question is whether, in itself, parking in front of a property in the AONB is harmful.  Concluded that parking is not inherently harmful, and as other aspects of highway safety are acceptable, the recommendation is to permit.

-       Any unauthorised development of the site is not relevant to the determination of this planning application.

BF:  what about bin storage?  Visited the site and could not see from the outside whether this is adequately covered.

JS, in response:

-       Yes, bin storage is proposed.  It can be seen on one of the drawings.

MC:  agrees with SW – this is better use of one very big house, sub-dividing it into several dwellings.  On Planning View, noted the access was down a narrow road, and there are a couple of references to visibility splays in the report.  The Highways officer has said these will need to be maintained.  Who will be responsible for the maintenance, with eight sets of accommodation on site?

RW:  it is difficult to see any valid reason not to permit this proposal, especially as there is no change to the external building.  Notes that the plan shows 14 car parking spaces – this doesn’t sound unreasonable to him.  The proposal feels like good use in planning terms, and goes towards meeting Cheltenham’s housing needs.

PB:  agrees with SW.  This is an excellent application.  We need more units of this size, and anticipates a very long queue of people to take them up.  Regarding visibility and access from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Officer introduction:

MP introduced the application, at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman due to concerns from local residents.  The proposal is for the demolition of 12 garages, to be replaced with three mews-style dwellings.  Officers feel this is effective use of a brownfield site, which will enhance the conservation area, cause no harm to neighbouring amenity, and comply with highways requirements.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

Is speaking as an independent neighbour, summarising the objections and observations of other neighbours as well as himself.  Neighbours had come to terms with the previous proposal, permitted in December 2017, for two dwellings with parking on this brownfield site.  The latest application is for three houses with no gardens, and will impact neighbouring amenity and privacy, and have traffic implications.  These properties have no private amenity space, and will need to keep their wheelie bins and recycling boxes inside to preserve good external appearance, but the garages are so small, there will be no room if a car is parked inside.  The result will be either cars parked in front of the houses, or refuse left in the lane – against the development aim to improve and enhance the lane..  The garages are too small for cars and may well be converted in living rooms, increasing the possibility of cars being illegally parked on the lane.  Regarding privacy, the existing three cottages were mandated to have frosted glass in their east-facing windows to avoid overlooking the gardens in Painswick Road.  The frontal aspect of these cottages is towards Park Place, not the service lane of Ashford Road, and they have no back doors onto the lane.  The proposed houses have balconies which will look directly into the kitchen, rear bedrooms and garden of his property.  There should be a consistent approach between the existing and proposed cottages.    Regarding traffic, a third household will mean an increase in traffic and potential conflict with existing users of the garages and back garden access from the lane.  The application states that the garages are disused, but three households represents a significant change of use to the lane, with more air and light pollution from traffic and from the houses.  The occupants are likely to have two cars per household, plus deliveries and visitors.  There is no room for parking in the lane, but likely that residents and visitors will park on some part of the lane, blocking access for others with legal use of the lane.  This needs to be considered and shouldn’t be passed off as a civil issue.    Finally, Severn Trent says there are no public sewers in the area, but residents understand there is a large mains sewer pipe under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Officer introduction:

NH introduced the application for internal changes and a small, single-storey basement-level extension.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Parsons.  Enforcement officers have looked at the site as work has taken place there without consent; a similar application in September 2018 was withdrawn.  Regarding the proposal site, officers consider it to be a good example of a basement designed to be a service area, reflecting the clear social and functional divisions within the household and building.  This is reflected in the layout and detailing of the basement, and the loss of historic fabric and layout is felt to be unjustified.  Solutions have been sought, including a door between the lounge and lobby for internal access– but advice has not been taken, leaving officers with no choice but to refuse, as they consider the harm to outweigh the public benefit of this proposal.

Public Speaking:

Agent, in support

This is a Grade II listed building, part of a terrace of four townhouses built in the early-mid 1800s.   The application is part of an ongoing programme of investment and improvement.  The majority of works are considered acceptable by officers, with a difference of opinion relating to two elements of the works to the basement, which are designed to improve circulation and outlook:  firstly the insertion of a 2.7m opening in the wall between the stair lobby and the lounge, and secondly the part removal of a wall to the basement stair and lobby and insertion of a balustrade.   There are many surviving historical features on the upper floors of the property, but few of any significance in the basement, which has been subjected to various works when the building was converted to flats in the 1970s, including the insertion of a concrete floor slab, re-plastering and sub-division of the original plan form in many of the rooms.  Parts of the existing partition between the stair lobby and rear basement room have been significantly altered, with the insertion of block work in places. There are significant material considerations and heritage benefits overlooked in the officer report.  The adjoining building  at 59 Pittville Lawn gained listed building consent for very similar works at basement level, with the officer report noting that the basement had been heavily altered, and the approved plans showing virtually identical alterations to those proposed by the application at No 61.  The two houses are part of the same listing, so the works to No.61 should be acceptable. The changes to the plan form will reinstate the original proportions of the front basement room, through removal of modern partitions, and integrate the basement level in a beneficial way with the rest of the house. The boiler room  will be located at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Officer introduction:

BH told Members that this proposal for a two-storey addition to the front of the house followed a recent permitted application, where revisions were sought to remove the proposed single storey.  Councillor Payne, who requested the application be brought to Committee, considers that the proposal adds character to an otherwise bland proposal, but officers consider that it will harm the street scene.  Their recommendation is therefore to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Applicant, in support

Moved to the property six years ago, as a long-term family home.  The property was tired and in need of significant repairs; has invested a great deal of time and effort in extensive restoration to get the house to its current condition.  Loves the area, and would like to stay here as long as possible.  Neighbours are supportive, and the Parish Council is happy with the scheme.  Would not propose anything which would damage the neighbourhood, streetscene or house itself.   It is an unusual house, with the main and original door facing the garden; the door to Finchcroft Lane is not used or accessible, and with the drive and access of Noverton Lane, the house is naturally accessed from that side.  Is asking for one change to the existing permission – the provision of a first floor above an already approved ground floor extension, with gabled roof to match the existing house.     The planning officer acknowledges that whether or not this is a front or rear extension isn’t the issue; it states that the extension will not be subservient to the main house and will dominate the west elevation.  In fact, the gables are lower than the existing main roof, the proposal will not add to the footprint, and will be no closer to the road than what is already approved.  Therefore feels that the extension is subservient, and that the design represents continuity of the original building and previous developments.  Due to previous alterations, there are different stairs and varying levels in the house, making space quite inefficient.  The extension will help the house to function better as a family home.  If it was harmful to the streetscene, there would have been at least one objection, or objection from the  Parish Council, but there have been neither. The guidelines in the SPD are only guidelines, not policy or rules.  The house is unusual and different from the more standard type of housing covered by the SPD – it would be impossible fort the SPD to cover all scenarios.    Considering all these points, feels that the extension is appropriate to the house and streetscene.

Member debate:

SW:  supports officers on this; has no truck with whether it is a front or rear extension.  It is a fact that the footprint is the same – doesn’t like the idea of ground floor coming out, but cannot change that.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Officer introduction:

BH introduced the application as above, at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey, due to the potential impact on the view and on the neighbouring property in Copt Elm Road.   The officer recommendation is to permit.  

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB:  on Planning View, thought that this is an excellent design.  Does not feel that overlooking is a problem, nor that it is particularly overbearing on neighbouring property – these are therefore not reasonable planning grounds to refuse.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

SW:  on the recent Completed Schemes Tour, several Members were concerned  about the finish on some of the more expensive properties.  Recently went to visit the new CBH properties in Newton Road, and would just like to say that the design and finish on these are amazing.  This is social housing, and all the detail – mitres, wood grain etc – is done to perfection.  Full marks to CBH and the builder.  If only all buildings were finished like that!