Agenda and minutes

Councillors Seacome, Hegenbarth and Flynn.

18/01796/FUL 61 Whaddon Road

Councillor Hay – requested the application be brought to Committee and is speaking in objection – will not take part in the debate.

18/02297/FUL 59 Cirencester Road

Councillor McCloskey – knows the applicant – will leave the Chamber.

None.

None.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th December 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following corrections:

i.              18/01973/FUL Dowty House

Page 17

PB:  … At the Axiom development, 12 no spaces are provided and none are used – people living there don’t use cars, and anyone buying town-centre properties will appreciate that they cannot keep a car…

ii.            18/2137/FUL 3 Harvest Street

Page 21

PB:  …Went to the urban design presentation on this nice little development 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…

iii.           18/02097/FUL, 252 Bath Road

Page 11

MC: …The application applicant has no sympathy with the additional traffic the proposal  will create; Bath Road is already a nightmare…

Councillor Hay left the member seating area for the duration of this item

Officer introduction

JS introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Hay.  The officer recommendation is to permit, in line with the reasons set out in the report.

Mr Deeley, of the applicant, in support

In response to the ward member’s comments and those of some of the neighbours, is highlighting a couple of points re. building heights.  There are a number of three-storey residential properties on Whaddon Road - Thames House, 49 Whaddon Road, and the neighbouring 16-apartment complex. Since the officer report, has re-surveyed the building heights, confirming the proposal is 2.2m shorter than neighbouring apartments, and will therefore not appear overly dominant in the streetscene.  It is also set a further 4.5m back in the site, which will further diminish its visibility.

The design of the scheme mirrors 49 Whaddon Road, and the applicants have worked closely with officers at both pre-app and application stages to deliver a scheme that maximised its contribution to sustainable development.  The scheme represents a positive investment to this part of Cheltenham and is a significant improvement on the dilapidated bungalow currently on the site.   

There are concerns about the bin store and emptying the bins, but the proposed store is adjacent to the bin store for Robins Close – these bins are removed without issue, so does not imagine any problems with emptying the proposed bins.

Residents are also concerned with parking, but one space will be provided for each flat, which is better than the existing arrangements; the existing two-bedroomed property has no private off-street parking, thus requiring residents to park on the street – which this proposal will remove.  The officer proposes a condition requiring parking to be installed prior to occupation, to ensure no on-streetparking as a result of this development.  By locating the apartments one mile from the town centre and providing bike storage for each apartment, it is hoped that future occupants will use sustainable transport.  In addition, there are local shops and a bus stop opposite.

Ultimately, the hope is to regenerate this brownfield site and bring it back into a beneficial use.

Councillor Hay, in objection

Originally asked for this application to come to Committee, and although several revisions made since have addressed concerns regarding trees and lights, there are still some concerns remaining.  Firstly, the accessibility of the bin store for UBICO vans and workers – there is a maximum distance they will walk to collect the bins.  Access for two of the car-parking spaces is through Robins Close, which is owned by a housing association – will permission be given for the new residents to use this private road to reach their parking spaces?  Who will be responsible for the maintenance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Councillor McCloskey left the Chamber for the duration of this item

Officer introduction

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

Public speaking

Mr May, in objection      

Is speaking on behalf of his sister, who lives next door.  On Planning View, Members will have seen the Rear terrace behind No. 57, which enjoys a special open aspect, making it an important part of the residential amenity of No. 57.  Information provided by the applicant’s agent earlier this week states that there will be no problems re. loss of direct sunlight, but  the proposed two-storey house would protrude the full length of the terrace and the roof apex would be 7 metres above terrace level.  The real issue will be its unneighbourly, overbearing impact on the terrace. In 1995, Planning Committee refused permission for a two-storey extension to the rear of No. 59, which would have been 300mm lower than the building now proposed. It will be most hurtful and irrational if the Committee were now to grant permission for this overbearing development, when planning policies haven’t materially changed since 1995.  The overbearing effect is unneighbourly, and contrary to policies. 

Members will also have noted that there will be a loss of daylight to the dining room, which should be assessed in planning terms, using the 25^o rule, as the proposed building directly faces the window.  The dining room is already shaded by the existing house, but the large box dormer proposed on the norther side of the house would further reduce this daylight, causing further unacceptable loss of daylight detrimental to residential amenity and contrary to policies.  

Also objects to the prolonged noise and vibration nuisance for 5-7 weeks whilst installing auger piling now proposed to a depth of 5 metres on the site boundaries, and further noise when excavating the large pit to contain the foundations of the house.

Urges Members to be consistent in their decision-making and refuse permission for this overbearing, unneighbourly development.

Mr Northup, on behalf of the applicant, in support

Is speaking as son-in-law of applicant, having moved with his family into No 59 at Christmas 2016 to support his mother-in-law who has lived there for 43 years.  Has approached the need to update with sensitivity and fondness, as long-term and active residents of Charlton Kings. Built a garden annexe in 2016 as the start of the process, and it is now time to upgrade the main property and bring it up to the standards of the eco-annexe.  Has a large family, is part of a wider local family which visits frequently, and also needs home offices as both he and his wife work from home.  Have explored all options adapting and modernising the existing property, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

JS introduced the application as above.  It is at Committee because CBC is the applicant.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  was on Planning Committee when the works were first approved, and couldn’t understand then why this was only a temporary access – to cope with the bigger machinery, possible vehicle breakdown, and act as an emergency exit.  To retain it is common sense; fully supports the application.

MC:  was also on Committee when this scheme was originally considered, and remembers the challenge to get parking on the site during the construction of the buildings.  If people are going in and out of the cemetery to attend funerals, tend graves etc, would rather have a separate access for service vehicles etc.  The objectors state that this access was always intended to be permanent, but can’t see that this is such a bad idea.  Would ask how it will be controlled?  It is for service access now, but on Planning View noticed a lot of damage to the existing grass area on Imjin Road.  Will this be made good when the construction is complete?  It currently looks a mess.

SC:  to clarify, the purple strip on the drawing represents the proposed road, and the blue road at the top the existing cemetery access road.  From the drawings on the wall, it looks like there are two access roads to the cemetery, the blue to Bouncers Lane, the purple to Imjin Road. What is the difference?  Is one used more than the other?

JS, in response:

-          The purple access is controlled by a gate from the Imjin Road side – the owners (CBC) of the site will have control;

-          The other access is permanent as part of the previous permission, which is why it isn’t being considered in this application.

-           

RH:  for clarity, the gate is the only thing people will see from Kimberley Walk; what is the height of the gate?  The existing gate is as high as the fence.  There are some objections, but a number of residents have asked if they can keep the road, or get it across to the top to allow disabled access.  The gate is proposed; is there pedestrian access?

JP: with reference to SC’s point, the blue road is part of the exit road from crematorium, which operates a one-way system.  The exit road eventually joins gates at Bouncers Lane and is used by mourners and hearses.

JS, in response:

-          To RH, the gates don’t need planning permission because they are less than 1m high, and will be maintained at this height;

-          Doesn’t know about any links to pedestrian access at the top.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.