Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Barnes and Hobley.

1.    18/02053/FUL, 48 Swindon Road, Cheltenham

-       Councillor Seacome advised he was a friend of the applicant and so would leave the chamber for the duration of the debate.

2.    19/00550/FUL,103 Linden Avenue, Prestbury, Cheltenham

-       Councillor McCloskey explained that he knew the applicant and so would leave the chamber for the duration of the debate.

-       Councillor Payne advised that would be speaking in support of the application and then would leave the chamber for the debate.

None.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting on 21^st March 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21^st March 2019 were signed as a true record, without amendment.

Planning Application Documents

Councillor Seacome left the chamber for the duration of the debate.

JS introduced the applications as above, the proposal was for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site comprising 7 apartments and 2 semi-detached houses. The application was at committee at the request of Councillor Brownsteen due to concerns about parking and highways safety. He further advised that a late representation had been received from a neighbour in objection.

Miss Shill, on behalf of residents, in objection

Miss Shill highlighted that despite the fact the development  was on 48 Swindon Road, 75% of the development faced on to Normal Terrace and 100% of the dwellings had access via Normal Terrace. She indicated that this would have a considerably affect on the residents of Normal Terrace, yet no assessments had been conducted, including on the impact of the local infrastructure, safety and residents. Residents key concerns were around highways, reduction in parking spaces and refuse issues. She noted that the development made no provisions for the storage of recyclable waste and had assumed that residents would use the current bins which were already overfilled on a weekly basis. She highlighted that residents on Normal Terrace were already competing for limited car parking spaces and were often required to park on surrounding streets. She felt it unrealistic to assume that because of the  developments proximity to the town centre residents would not have a car.  She cited further concerns around highway access and pedestrian safety as the development would remove the space in front of the garages that was presently used for turning. As such, residents would be required to reverse out on to Swindon Road and the addition of the flats would further hinder reversing drivers line of site. She reiterated that the residents were not against development, however, felt that the plans were not right for this pocket of town.

Miss Brown, on behalf of the applicant, in support

Miss Brown confirmed that the applicant  owns the site at 48 Swindon Road site. She felt that the site was a tired site and in need of investment. She confirmed that the proposals were for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to include a mix of contemporary and traditional buildings which would remove the elements of the site considered detrimental to the character of the conservation area by the planning officers.  She highlighted that the applicant had proactively engaged at all stages of the process in order to achieve a well designed scheme that the conservation officer had not objected to. The development would also create 9 additional much needed dwellings.  Whilst there had been no provisions for parking she reasoned that the site was in a highly sustainable location close  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application Documents

LW: Introduced the application as above. She explained that the proposal was for the erection of two and single storey side and rear extensions and various external alterations to the existing building. It was at the committee at the request of Councillor Barrell due to the contemporary design and impact on the conservation area.

In terms of background, she highlighted that the application follows the withdrawal earlier in 2019 of two previous planning proposals for the site following concerns from officers.  She explained that officers had assessed the impact on the conservation area, the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties. She acknowledge that it was a large extension, however,  she considered the site wide and deep enough to accommodate it. She confirmed that the property is located within the Central Conservation Area and the existing building is an example of a late Arts and Craft style dwelling. 

John Clarke, neighbour in objection

Mr Clarke felt that there was no planning gain from the application and felt it was purely a speculative development to add value through the planning system. Additionally, there would be considerable loss to the conservation area. As per the comments by objectors they felt that the extension would detract from the character of the area. He highlighted that the existing site footprint would be almost doubled by this application which he considered to be too large for this sensitive site. He acknowledged that the Parks Conservation Area Plan protects and promotes houses in large open mature garden settings and he felt that this application visibly builds on garden land close to the street frontage and closes down open views to Harefield Road and as such detracts from that objective. He highlighted that the house is one of 6 arts and crafts houses whose street frontages have largely been unchanged over the last 100 years, as such, this development would be a fundamental departure from that principle. He noted that the conservation area seeks to protect buildings  of distinction and felt that this development would destroy that. He was also concerned that this would set a precedent for further development of this scale in this area.

Councillor Harman, in objection

Councillor Harman felt that this was a significant application for the future of Painswick Road. He acknowledged the objections from other residents and in particular the objection from St Phillips and James Residents Association with regards to the excessive enlargement of this property and the alterations to the appearance of the street scene. He felt that the revised application did not address the core issues of concern residents had. 

DB: Clarified that she hadn’t taken personal view on the application but referred it to committee due to the concerns of residents and the residents association.

BF: Believed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Planning Application Documents

BH: Introduced the application as above, he explained that the application sought to erect a timber framed building at Berkhampstead School. It would be located on the land between Hewlett Road and the side elevation of the school that faces on to Cleeview Road. He advised that it would be located in Cheltenham’s Central Conservation Area and was intended to be a wellness pod for school students. It was at committee at the request of Councillor Wilkinson and the officer recommendation was to refuse.

Miss Bareham, on behalf of the applicant, in support

Miss Bareham believed that the proposal for a ‘wellebing pod’ would not impact anyone negatively. She stressed that there would be no noise or visual impact to neighbours and it would be screened from view by existing trees and bushes, that would all remain as the building would be suspended on piles, therefore avoiding tree roots. She highlighted that it would be single storey and next to a busy road, which in itself is not in the conservation area. She advised that they had written to all off the surrounding neighbours and had received no objections. She advised that the building would be high quality design and fully functioning room with lighting and underfloor heating. Inside would be resources to support children’s mental health, which she highlighted is vital to the future mental health of Cheltenham and an extremely important priority of the school. SH reasoned that the pod was necessary as an office or classroom can be uncomfortable as it can lead to many interruptions. She informed the committee that the space would also be use as a quiet space at playtime for children with sensory issues and those who find social interaction difficult. She highlighted that the children and parents had raised over £10,000 to fund the pod themselves.

AH: Could not see why they would refuse the application and suggested they move straight to the vote.

PB: Reasoned that officers had made an on balance decision and they should consider the reasons.

RH: Highlighted that the music block which was not aesthetically pleasing and visible from the road and that had been granted permission. Similarly there had been no objection from neighbours and she felt that they had made best use of the site. However, she requested a condition be imposed  to ensure that no trees were to be removed. 

SW: Agreed that the addition of the wellness pod was a good facility for the school. However, had slight concerns about the size of the plot and the possibility of erecting the structure without removing trees.

BF: Highlighted that the site is already crowded and located in a central conservation area.

MC: Agreed that mental health and wellbeing of young people were vitally important  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Planning Application Documents

Councillor McCloskey left the chamber for the duration of the debate.

BH: Introduced the application, he explained that the proposal was for the first floor front extension over part of the existing garage to provide further living accommodation. He advised that it was at committee at the request of Councillor Stennett on behalf of the applicant and the officer recommendation was to refuse due to the poor design and the fact the structure would be at odds with the existing property and locality.

Mrs Mullens, applicant, in support

Advised that the purpose of the application was to bring two households together and adapt the space to accommodate her family of 4 and her elderly father. The application would essentially create a granny flat for her father allowing him to retain his independence and privacy as well as giving them adequate space to bring up a family. It would also prevent her father entering in to the care system.

She highlighted that the extension has the support from all of the neighbours, Prestbury parish council and the ward borough councils. She advised that a lot of time and consideration had been given to the design, considering neighbours on all sides. She further highlighted that the case planning officer had been consulted on two occasions prior to plans being submitted and they believed they had acted upon her advice. They were therefore surprised to see the report submitted to the committee and comments regarding poor design. They believed that the windows and general fenestration were in line with guidelines, however, were more than happy to amend them.

She highlighted that all of the surrounding houses were noticeably different in shape and size with alterations brought about by permitted alterations. She cited a case whereby  a neighbouring property was permitted to raise the roof however it was permitted due to the differing designs on the street. They therefore believed that their design was not out of character with other properties in the local area and believed there were a number of less sympathetically designed extensions locally.

She advised that with regards to the design and look of the proposed extension they would carefully select materials that would match with the existing property and use the same coloured window frames and layout the windows as recommend by the planning officer. She noted that all of the extension had been planned within the original footprint of the house and they had ensured the roof design was in line with building regulations.

Councillor Payne, in support

Had concerns in the process that has led to  recommendation for refusal, mainly because the plans before the committee were the second iteration of the scheme and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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 remaining agenda items 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 paragraph 5, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

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

RESOLVED THAT

In accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining agenda items 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 paragraph 5, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

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

To approve the exempt minutes of the meeting on 21^st March 2019.

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 21^st March 2019 were signed as a true record, without amendment.