Agenda and minutes

Councillors Atherstone, Payne and Wheeler.   Councillor Flynn was absent

There were none.

Councillor McCloskey was not on Planning View, but made independent visits to

-       18/02137/FUL 3 Harvest Street and

-       18/02186/FUL 245 Prestbury Road

Has visited all other sites on previous occasions (apart from 17/01812/FUL 42 Riverview Way)

Councillor Sudbury apologised for not being present at Planning View; has visited

-       18/02097/FUL 252 Bath Road and

-       18/01973/FUL Dowty House

on previous occasions. 

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd November 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following amendment:

Page 16, 18/01940/FUL Garages rear of Mercian Court, Park Place

DB:  Also questions the situation re. parking privacy, and how secure whether the windows are obscured at the top.  Is concerned about Mercian Court, on the other side of the houses; the proposed building is very close to its windows… 

Officer introduction:

JS introduced the application for the demolition of the building at 252 Bath Road, and erection of a three-storey building, with an A1/A3 communal unit at ground floor, and eight flats above.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, and the officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Scarborough, local resident, in objection

Accepts that there is room for development here, but objects to the three-storey building, the majority of which is in Langdon Road.  Little attention has been paid to the aspect, size and scale, as with the previous applications. The increased footprint and three-storey building make no attempt to respect the boundary transition, building right up to Langdon Road.  The Design and Access statement refers to the new building.  The Design and Access statement says that the new building ‘tapers’ but this is hard to detect.  The developer says there are other three-storey buildings close by – there are, but these quickly drop to two storeys on turning the corner into the residential street.   This proposal fails to marry Bath Road to Langdon Road – it is like a punch on the nose; there is no transition from the three-storey commercial to the residential.  The JCS requires particular attention to be paid to the character of the locality – its spatial quality, rhythms, density, scale, style and materials.  The developer says describes the proposal as ‘contemporary’, and uses this to reject all guidelines, and as an excuse to ignore all the surrounding buildings – the proposal is out of rhythm, out of scale, right  to the small boundary wall, in front of building line, and featuring metal and glass balustrades.   There is special protection for conservation areas, to ensure future development appropriate to the area – this is not.  The NPPF requires development to contribute to local character and distinctiveness – this does not.  It also says permission should be refused if the proposed development fails to improve the character and quality of an area - this does not.

Mr Campbell, agent, in support

This application is a resubmission, after refusal of the previous scheme in May.  That proposal was refused on design grounds and the impact of the building on properties in Francis Street; this scheme resolves those issues.  After the refusal of the previous proposal, the applicant sought advice from the conservation team, resulting in a better, more appropriate design.  Gloucestershire Design Review considers this proposal to be a significant improvement on original, supporting their report with comments, which were actioned.  There are significant differences between this and the previous schemes. The officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33a

Officer introduction:

JS introduced the application for 13 dwellings on land adjacent to Stone Crescent, which is at Committee at the request of Councillor Holliday.  The officer recommendation is to permit, subject to an S106 agreement.

Public Speaking:

Mr McCreadie, agent, in support

Speaks as a chartered surveyor, specialising in residential development, and thanks Members for the opportunity to speak on this development for 13 residential units including five affordable, on a former part of the Rowanfield School site.  Since the previous refusal, has been working with planning officers to meet all policy requirements, and has produced a scheme which is now recommended for approval.  New Dawn Homes bought the land from the county council in 2014, with planning permission in place.  It is an allocated site in a sustainable location, and will provide much-needed 2-5-bedroomed modern houses, similar to those built in Village Road, featuring yellow brick and wooden windows.  Local residents are concerned about the lack of parking, but 2.3 parking spaces will be provided for each home, with 3-4 spaces on plot for the larger homes, in addition to 10 additional on-road spaces for visitor parking.  Rowanfield School already brings additional traffic to the area, and this proposal will not make it worse.  There will be room on the road for refuse lorries, and a 2-metre footpath for pedestrians.  The scheme will provide quality homes in Cheltenham, from an award-winning company – New Dawn Homes was highly-recommended as a small house-builder by LHBC.  S106 contributions will be made for local schools, and hopes therefore that Members will support and permit this much-needed housing development.

Councillor Holliday, on behalf of local residents

There have been numerous concerns from local residents.  These include concern with highway safety, the increase in traffic, and flooding (now resolved).  Although the principle of development of the site was established in 2014, when it was allocated for residential use in the emerging local plan, any development needs to be right for the site.  New Dawn Homes sowed seeds of mistrust early on by not communicating with local residents despite saying that they had; they produced photographs which misrepresented the reality of parked vehicles in Stone Crescent; and then compounded the damage by removing a number of trees without any warning.  Residents’ concerns about these issues are documented in the agenda papers.  Alstone Lane into Wharfdale Square is a narrow access; at school times and when visitors are parking there, it is even narrower, giving rise to the question as to how emergency vehicles would be able to get through.  When did Members visit the site?  At school pick-up times, there is parking chaos, littering the estate with vehicles; at weekends  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33b

Officer introduction:

MP introduced the application as above.  The building is locally indexed, prominent in the conservation area, and has most recently been used as a care home.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hobley, due to residents’ concerns.  The Architects’ Panel is not supportive.  With S106 contributions towards affordable homes and replacement tree planting, the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Mark Godson, agent, in support

SF Planning was pleased to be approached regarding this site by a local developer with a track record for delivering high-quality development, a convincing architect, and recognition of the importance of Dowty House – the aim being to re-integrate it into the surroundings rather than further isolate it.  Is grateful for constructive feedback during the process, with key amendments requested by the Civic Society and Architects’ Panel. These include a reduction in scale and massing on norther edge of the development, and separation of the development from Dowty House on Monson Avenue, thus restoring the original rear elevation compared to the existing ugly arrangement.  The development ensures Dowty House will be enhanced, refurbished and maintained for many years.  It meets all the council’s criteria re amenity standards set out in Policy CP5, with generous landscaped courtyard.  In consultation with the tree officer, a robust and detailed assessment was made before proposing the removal of a tree on Monson Avenue – which has enable a much better layout and design, and facilitated a large contribution to replacement tree planting in the borough.   The proposal also provides an affordable housing contribution, as explained in the officer report. 

Recognises that some local residents are concerned regarding parking provision, and although County Highways have approved the proposals as they stand, the applicant is keen to provide realistic options for residents, through provision of bikes and secure bike storage, bus passes, and sustainable transport vouchers – this can all be secured through a suitably-worded condition to secure a travel plan.  They have also confirmed with NCP Car Parks the availability of season passes for future residents which could be provided through the travel plan if deemed necessary.

The proposal has been amended in response to constructive advice, designed to enhance the conservation area whilst making effective and efficient use of the previously developed land.  It will be delivered by a local developer and architect who have demonstrated good will and understanding, and are both known for very high-quality schemes. 

Councillor Hobley, on behalf of local residents

It is clear that a lot of local residents support redevelopment of the site in some form.  Dowty House is an important and attractive historic building for all of Cheltenham, and it is absolutely vital that a future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33c

At the request of Councillor Clucas, the Chairman agreed to consider Item 4, 18/01812/FUL 42 Riverview Way first.

Officer Introduction:

GD introduced the application, for an extension of the extant planning permission granted in 2016 for a temporary metal storage shed until 31^st December 2018.  The applicant would like to extend the permission by 12 months.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Clucas.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Swanton, applicant, in support

42 Riverview Way is a mid-terrace property with no external access to the rear garden, making it impossible to have any significant storage capacity in that area, as the only access is through the house.   This makes it critical to have some sort of accessible storage to the front of the house, but the front garden area is not an option as the Riverview square is open plan.  The shed is built on an existing concrete base laid down during the original estate development; all the houses at the end of Riverview have single garage concrete bases to the rear or side of the properties.  Some owners have constructed garages, some have not. The concrete bases for Nos. 40 and 42 are one shared platform alongside the garden of No. 38, and it is unsurprising that the owner of No. 42 wants to place a building on the existing concrete base.  Chose a purpose-designed steel security shed as security is the most important factor, following a number of thefts from the property.  The shed is sectional, and can be removed on departure for use at a future property.  The low roofline and green finish are intended to minimise local impact; neighbours have garden sheds, one of which is taller, immediately adjacent to one side and to the rear of the metal shed.  In response to Parish Council comments, the ‘temporary’ reference in the original application refers to the applicant’s intention to relocate, not to any short-term need for extra storage.  Has permanent need to store tools and equipment.  No further extension will be required beyond the end of 2019. The neighbour has referred to noise from the shed, but this was only during construction; ongoing noise is negligible – the shed is not a workshop, has no power, and simply provides essential secure storage.

Councillor Clucas, in objection

Asked for this application to come to Committee as there are a number of things to be clarified. An existing concrete base has been used to build this structure upon; the structure itself is steel.  Is not aware that the look of the structure is a matter of debate or discussion.  The two main issues are as follows:  firstly, the metal nature of this particular structure is causing considerable distress to those nearby  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33d

Officer introduction:

MP reminded Members that the original application was for 13 apartments, including bin and cycle storage.  This application is for a minor amendment to increase the store by 2.1m and also use if for gas metres, together with the addition of two additional car parking spaces.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Barrell, due to concerns from the neighbour.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Spencer, neighbour, in objection

When the original planning application was put in, saw the drawings, and the proposed east and west elevations; these showed the height of the proposed bin and cycle store on the same level as the wall to his property, and the base on the same level as Lypiatt Lodge.  Was quite happy with this.  Building proceeded with a large hoarding in place, and became concerned when breeze blocks could be seen over the top of this.  Spoke to the builder who assured him that the building was being constructed in accordance with the plans, later reassuring him that the developer and architect had confirmed this.  It was clear by this state that the building was 2.1m longer and 20cm wider than the drawing.  The height is overbearing and has a major impact on his garden.  On planning view, heard a Member state that the cycle store had been built too high.  Feels that, by questioning the height of the cycle store early, the builder had good opportunity to correct the matter at an early stage, and finds the disregard for neighbouring amenity and for the planning system very irritating.  Has read about a similar case in Stoke on Trent, where a building was put up 75cm than it should have been, and was rejected.  This cycle store has knowingly been built not in accordance with the original plans. 

Member debate:

PB:  it is true to say that the building is not in accordance with the original application, which is why it is back as a revised application now.  Members now need to look at what is in front of them.  The height is not changed; the building is now longer towards the neighbouring property, and therefore appears higher.  The architects have not been hones in presenting their drawings.  It is a tricky case, but as the height has not changed, will support the application.

KS:  asked for an explanation of the photographs.

BF:  when officers considered the original application, were they aware that the building would protrude that far over the wall?  Was there not ground for refusal on CP4?

MP, in response:

-       The building was always proposed at that height; it was part of the approval.

Vote on officer recommendation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33e

Officer introduction:

MP told Members this application is at Committee because CBC is the applicant, and entails work to the dome of the Pump Room.  Listed building consent is needed for the repair work, and this is supported by the Conservation Officer.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to grant

13 in support – unanimous

GRANT

Officer Introduction:

BH described the application as above, at Planning Committee due to Parish Council objection, which considers that the garage conversion will have an unacceptable impact on the street scene.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB:  is saddened by this application.  Went to the urban design presentation expounding good-quality design, and it is disappointing that now, before completion of this nice little development,  these changes will detract from the overall effect of the street scene.  More changes are likely to be requested.  We are approving good-quality designs and within minutes, these are being changed.  The Parish Council is right to object.

PM:  had no idea what to expect with this, so went to have a look.  Could see what the architect was doing, to present a nice run of identical houses.  It is a shame that this will be changed even before the houses are built.  Is deeply saddened by this.

SC:  on Planning View, noticed a house on the estate where this has already been done.  Does this establish a new precedent?

BH, in response:

-       One of the planning officers has already dealt with a garage conversion of a similar nature.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

Officer introduction:

BH introduced the application for a further three bedrooms at this property.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hay, due to concerns regarding the management of the building.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr De Vries, agent, in support

Concurs with the findings of the well-written officer support – this is a sustainable form of development, offering substantial benefits to the people whose lives will be enhanced by the proposal, and by the wider community.  There have been two objections from neighbouring properties, which the applicant has sought to address.  Firstly, regarding the position of the bin storage, this has been moved from the front to the rear of the property.  Secondly, the concerns about potential noise and disturbance and management of the building- the proposed use is similar to the previous use of this site, the applicants propose 24/7 monitoring, and will supply adjoining neighbours with their contact  details.  The proposed scheme does not cause any further privacy issues, but the comments from the neighbouring property have been incorporated into the scheme.  As stated in the committee report, the case officer agrees that the proposal does not constitute over-development of the site.

Member debate:

KH:  unfortunately will not vote in support of this proposal.  Pivotal Homes, the applicant, has a property in St Paul’s Parade, which is well known for problems with management and the people they work with.  This is a similar proposal.  In St Paul’s, there have been complaints about the management of the property; that scheme did not come through the planning department, and is pleased for the Prestbury Road residents that this proposal is being considered at Planning Committee, via Councillor Hay.  Taking into account the plans, and the inadequate staffing provided in his own ward, will not vote in support of this proposal.

PM:  is struggling with this proposal.  Cannot see how the lives of the residents will be enhanced, as stated by the agent.  The building currently houses 10 residents, with communal spaces; this proposal is for 13 residents, with no communal space.  Will they be confined to their individual units?  What about eating together and watching television?  These people need support, and it is a tragedy to think it’s a good idea to do away with communal living space.  Can ‘loss of amenity’ as a reason to refuse permission be applied to those living inside a building as well as those outside?

BF: As discussed with other applications tonight, these are not planning issues, and the planning permission does not cover them.  Regarding the problems in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33h

There were none.