Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Wheeler and Atherstone. Councillor Parsons was in attendance as substitute.

1.    18/01320/FUL Hilden Lodge Hotel, 271 London Road, Charlton Kings

Councillor McCloskey - Is quoted at the start of the officer report in a way which seems to suggest he has a closed mind on this application. Would like to state for record that this is not the case; has an open mind, will listen to the speakers and the debate before deciding on how to vote.

2.    19/00088/FUL 16 Rowena Cade Avenue, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Councillor Cooke - Noted from the papers that the applicant’s name is the same as someone he once worked with, but would state for the record that he has not had any dealings with the applicant or the application.

Councillor Fisher had visited 18/02547/FUL Glenfall Farm Stables, Ham Road, Charlton Kings on a previous occasion; he had also visited 18/02581/FUL Cromwell Court, Greenway Lane, Charlton Kings.

There were none.

GB:  Explained that Members had received notification of alterations to the draft minutes from the meeting on the 21^st February from the County Highways Officers. He requested that Members approve the draft minutes subject to the changes proposed by the Highways Officers.

MC:  Noted that the changes from the original draft minutes and the amended version provided by the highways officer were minimal and as they were non-material changes, he didn’t agree with incorporating them. 

BF:  Felt that what was originally minuted better reflected what was said and considered the amendments to be pedantic.

GB:  Agreed that they were fairly minor changes but requested Members vote on whether they were happy to approve the amendments. 

Vote on minutes as amended

7 in support

3 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

The minutes of the meeting held on 21^st February 2019 were signed as a true record subject to the highway’s comments being amended to the following:

Lucas Arinze, Highways Officer, in response:

-       To address the comments made by Cllrs BF, JP and MC, regarding the gradient of Oakhurst Rise, Oakhurst Rise is a publicly maintainable historic highway which has served 30+ dwellings and a sub-station for a number of years. There is nothing to suggest that this section of highway in unsafe and there has been no personal injury collisions recorded. Manual for Gloucestershire Streets is only guidance and what it sets out is not absolute values. It provides guidance for developers and tells them what is definitely acceptable. There is nothing to say such gradient wouldn’t be acceptable; if all developments had to meet the values contained within Manual for Gloucestershire Streets, many developments in Stroud and the Forest of Dean for example wouldn’t be possible.

-       To MC, yes, highways officers have visited the site and appreciate the concerns raised;

-       To JP, it would be unreasonable to request the developer to re-profile the whole of Oakhurst Rise, and it could make the development unviable;

-         Highways officers would look at the gradient of highways within site should the developer choose to have them adopted.

Officer introduction

JS:  Introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for the demolition of the hotel and replacement with five dwellings, as above.  He advised that it was at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey, and the recommendation was to permit for the reasons set out in the report.

Mr King, agent in support

Advised that he was the agent speaking on behalf of Green Spinnaker, the owners of Hilden Lodge who were fully supportive of Mr Seymour’s committee report.

With regards to the exploration for retention, he explained that due to the increase in applications being granted within Cheltenham centre for larger commercialised hotels, along with the rise of Airbnb, the B&B business was no longer viable and as such, had led them to the difficult decision to close the family owned business.

He highlighted that the building itself has been altered and extended significantly in its life, namely in 1987, to consider the needs of a B&B. This has made the capability of converting it back into meaningful residential properties impossible. He reasoned that in order to create something practical and to suitable building standards, the building needed to be demolished.

With regards to the proposals and design, he reported that they had considered all the constraints and opportunities of the site along with the clear need for family housing within Cheltenham. He confirmed that the pre-application proposals were submitted in April 2018.

He explained that they had worked very hard with the planning department and relevant consultees in order to rectify the various concerns raised throughout the process. Whilst chapter 6 of the officer report highlighted the primary issues involved, the greatest consideration and most time consuming element was the architecture for the proposals. He advised that they had initially tried to create a uniformed shell from a relatively standard approach and then repeat it across the site, although he acknowledged, with hindsight, that this wasn’t the correct approach.

He noted that the Architects Panel had initially not supported the first or second proposal due to the elevational style. However, this had led to alterations and the proposal was now being supported with a recommendation for approval.

He confirmed that having been a family owned business, the decision to close after 12 years of ownership had been extremely upsetting. However, having worked closely with the Council over the past 12 months on the proposals, he felt there was now an exciting opportunity, as part the Hilden Lodge legacy, that would create some exciting, well considered, truly modern housing for several young families in Cheltenham for years to come.

Member debate:

PM:  Acknowledged that it was a family-run business and sympathised with the applicant with regards to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Officer introduction

GD:  Introduced the application which was seeking permission to convert three farm buildings to three dwellings, and to demolish and rebuild the existing farmhouse.  He highlighted that there was an additional condition, requiring a landscape scheme and advised that it was at Planning Committee because of an objection from the Parish Council and at the request of Councillor Babbage.

Mr Maloney, in objection

Explained that he was speaking against this application on behalf of the residents of Ham. He stated that the prime objection related to the demolition of a partial Cotswold Stone House, which was good enough to be currently occupied, and replacing it with a relocated modern new build. He highlighted that the site sits on the Lower Slopes of Ham Hill within the Cotswold AONB. He cited policy CO13 of the current town plan which states that;

“The conversion of rural buildings will only be permitted where: the building is appropriately located and suitably constructed and otherwise is suitable for conversion without substantial demolition, rebuilding or extension.”

He highlighted that the Courtyard Farm Buildings, which were originally part of Glenfall Farm, have a development history covering a 200-year period and are shown on Survey Maps of 1859 & 1883. He reiterated that this is the only Courtyard Complex of Cotswold Stone Barns within Ham, and felt that this application would needlessly demolish part of it. He noted that as per policies HEP1, DTP1 & CO3 now SD7 of the AONB and the JCS, such buildings should be preserved whenever possible. 

He explained that data extracted from published survey documents provides a comparison between the current dwelling and the proposed replacement and highlighted that the new build would have a footprint 1.4 times bigger, a volume that is 2.4 times larger and a ridge elevation increased by 3.54 meters which is 11’ 7” higher. He felt that with such increases, bearing in mind the design, construction materials and position on site, the building would be overpowering and dominate the area to the detriment of the farmstead’s history. He felt this was clearly shown by the developer’s visualisation, titled “street elevation” dated March 8th.

He highlighted that the previously approved plans demonstrated that all the buildings could be converted without demolition or relocation. Thus, preserving the character of the settlement, he felt there was no justification for the demolition of the existing dwelling, other than to build a vastly larger, modern structure that does not sit comfortably within the landscape, to the neighbourhood’s detriment and urbanisation of the AONB.

Councillor Savage, in objection

He reasoned that the tiny and historic hamlet of Ham is one of the most picturesque and unspoilt areas of Cheltenham, lying outside the principal urban area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Officer introduction

JS:  Introduced the application for the demolition of the existing house, and construction of eight self-build dwellings.  He confirmed that it was at committee at the request of Councillor Babbage, due to concerns about the impact on the AONB.  The recommendation is to permit for the reasons as set out in the officer report.

Mr Cassidy, in support

Advised that he owns and lives at Cromwell Court, he explained that he and his wife had a long held ambition to build their own home and building out one of the new homes provided a great opportunity for them to fulfil this ambition. He highlighted that they had great affection for the AONB and as such strived to develop a scheme that is to an architecturally high standard, interesting, unique and sympathetic to the AONB.

He advised that the scheme was landscape led and they had employed a team of experts with significant experience and understanding of working in sensitive landscape locations. Similarly, the design was led by a local landscape architect with extensive experience of working with the AONB board. He highlighted that the sensitive design also extends to the retention and enhancement of existing trees which would be maintained through a long-term management plan. The trees would also assist the site blend with the wider AONB and it was in their interest to protect them in the long-term.

He felt that the site could clearly accommodate a number of homes. The planning officer’s report acknowledges the benefits of introducing additional homes at the site and how this is an efficient use of existing residential and brownfield land. He highlighted that these would be self-build homes which would give other likeminded self-builders the opportunity to realise their own ambitions. He noted that the council had a duty to consent to self-build plots and felt this scheme helped the council meet this requirement.

He explained that the proposal had a central design theme which was key to ensuring the site would be developed sensitively; hence the submission of an application for full planning permission with lots of detail. He highlighted that other self-builders would need to comply with the consented plans to ensure the designs didn’t change, and acknowledged that as owners of the site they had control over the contracts of sale. He advised that they had had conversations with many people interested in the units as proposed and was confident that they would be built as shown.

He felt it significant that the proposal had local support, with 75 letters of support, including four from immediate neighbours. He noted that the Parish Council also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

CD: introduced the application as above, to create a single storey extension to the rear, and Juliet balconies, to a detached residential property. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman.  The recommendation is to permit for the reasons as set out in the report.

Public Speaking:

Mr Calvert, neighbour, in objection

Thanked the officers and the committee Members for looking at the proposals from their homes and gardens. He explained that they were pleased the plans had been revised with the omission of the roof terrace and they were fully supportive of the conditions suggested. He explained that they did, however, still have concerns about the impact of the proposed extension, materials and the inclusion of doors and Juliet balconies at first floor level. He stressed that they were not opposed to the principle for the extension and believed overall that it was a good design.  However, felt that with a few minor tweaks they could ensure that the amenity and enjoyment to their homes was less impacted.

He confirmed that the extension was 4.2m in depth at the north elevation and would impact on the amenity they had enjoyed for the last 9 years. He highlighted that loss of light, sunlight and an increase in overshadowing to the main living areas, lounge, dining room and patio, would also occur due to the orientation of their home. He acknowledged that one light test had failed when performed by CBC officers. He explained that at the South elevation, the proposed extension was 3.2m in depth and 2.7m high and less than 1m from the joint boundaries between number 16 and number 20, with a difference in the ground level of approx. 0.5m, with number 16 at the higher elevation. He highlighted that the proposal would be in the direct line of sight of the kitchen area of number 20 and so would be overbearing, resulting in a reduction of light into a main living area and therefore the loss of amenity. He felt that a reduction in the depth of the proposed extension would mitigate the effect to both properties, whilst still allowing number 16 to achieve their plans.

He highlighted that in this part of the Park Character Area of the central conservation area, all properties have red brickwork at the rear elevation and therefore, in order to protect the character of the area requested that this condition be applied.

He also had concerns about the balconies at the rear, which overlooked their property and resulted in a loss of privacy. Whilst recognising that this was a compromise to a roof terrace, he felt that there inclusion meant that the doors and balconies would be used. He advised that they had French doors at ground  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8b

The committee is recommended to approve the following resolution:-

That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in

paragraphs 3 and 5 , Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information); and

Paragraph 5: Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Refusal Reasons (Update to Members) –18/02171/OUT Land adjacent to Oakhurst Rise

The committee voted unanimously to approve the following resolution:-

That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in

paragraphs 3 and 5 , Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information); and

Paragraph 5: Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Refusal Reasons (Update to Members) –18/02171/OUT Land adjacent to Oakhurst Rise

Members reconsidered the reasons for refusal on the 18/02171/OUT Land adjacent to Oakhurst Rise application and the likely extent of costs should there be an appeal and debated whether to remove the highways reason for refusal.

Vote on PB’s move the delete concerns about highways as a refusal reason

12 in support

1 in objection

Highways reason removed