Agenda and minutes

Councillor Cooke – Councillor Savage substituting; Councillor Hegenbarth

Councillor Seacome -  18/02053/FUL 48 Swindon Road – is a friend of the applicant.  Will leave the Chamber during the debate.

Councillor Barrell – 19/00431/FUL Monkscroft Villas – her son works for CBH but she has not discussed the application with him in any way, and is not even sure if he would have any involvement in it.

Councillor Savage –Land and Garages at Alfred Way

Councillor Hobley – 48 Swindon Road

None.

To approve the minutes of the meeting on 18^th April 2019.

Councillor Barnes was not present, but Members were happy for him to sign the minutes as a true record of the meeting.

Planning Application Documents

Officer introduction:

DO introduced the application with a short presentation, setting out where consideration of the application was left last month, the key issues, and what has been done since.   The proposal is to demolish the existing building and erect nine new dwellings, with bin and cycle storage; no parking is proposed on site.  Reviewing April’s minutes, Members were concerned with three issues – parking, highway safety, and bike and bin storage. 

Regarding car parking, the proposal doesn’t include any; it is situated in Zone 11 which has 824 spaces for which CBC has issued 1005 permits – a permit doesn’t guarantee a parking space. Bike parking is provided on site.  CBC has no parking policy requiring any level of parking on site, and there has been no objection from Gloucestershire Highways, who regard this as a highly sustainable location.

Regarding vehicle manoeuvring  on Normal Terrace, the area adjacent to the garages, currently used by residents on site to reverse and turn, is convenient but privately owned, and its use could be limited at any time.  Highways officers have raised no objection on safety grounds; the visibility splays were discussed last time, and although the proposed dwellings occupy more of the site and are closer to Normal Terrace, they are also more set back.  A verbal discussion with County Highways officers has confirmed that they have no objection to the visibility splays created as a result of the development.

Regarding the bin and bike stores, the bin store has been enlarged since the last planning committee, to provide space for two 1,100l bins.  The refuse requirement is one bin for six apartments, so this provision is more than sufficient.  With a condition to ensure storage for ten bikes, officers consider bin and bike storage to be adequately covered.

The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection:

Members will have read the many objections, including those from a solicitor, a barrister and a town manager.  In response to members’ concerns last month about visibility and highways safety, highways officers have reiterated a lack of concern.  They do not appear to have visited the site, and describe Normal Terrace as a minor road. The case officer stated that the building will be set further back, but it will also be further east, blocking the sight-line and giving pedestrians and drivers less chance of seeing each other.   The highways authority has stated that it is not the responsibility of developers to improve matters, just not to make them worse.  To say this proposal will have no impact on a small street is ridiculous when it is obvious to any reasonable person that it will; residents will consider judicial review if the application is permitted in its current state.

Regarding loss of amenity, it is clear that the developer has not listened to residents.  Last month, the agent assured the committee that the proposal is well designed, but this created a  misleading impression, when the conservation officer has objected the scheme,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Planning Application Documents

Officer introduction

CH introduced the application as above, situated in Princess Elizabeth Way in West Cheltenham, currently occupied by a residential two-storey terrace of three empty houses with gardens to the  rear, together with some derelict outbuildings (part of an old council depot site) and mature trees and shrubs.  It is adjacent to Pinewood Drive, a residential area of two- and three-storey properties, with green space to the south, and Hesters Way Park to the north.  On the east side are four-storey flats facing Princess Elizabeth Way.  The application proposes demolition of all the existing buildings and construction of two four-storey apartment blocks to the south side (18 x 1-bed and nine 2-bed), and two 2-bed semi-detached houses with car parking to the north. Cheltenham Borough Homes has guaranteed a minimum of 60% affordable units.  The application is at committee because  CBH owns the lands. Two sets of revised plans have been provided, to address highways concerns and general layout and design issues.  The recommendation is to permit.

As an update, having studied to plans at length, a small correction is needed – there is a slight anomaly due to the scale being slightly different.  Refers members to the dimensions set out in paragraph 6.8 on Page 62 of the report – 5.8m should be 7m, and 10m should be 13m – setting the building further from boundary.

Similarly,  at paragraph 6.16,  5.8m should be 7m, 10m should be 13.4m, 19.5m should be 24.4m.

Public speaking

Alison Salter, on behalf of Cheltenham Borough Homes

This redevelopment began 12 months as part of a wider programme to make best use of council assets to provide much-needed affordable housing in the borough,  There are currently 2500 people on waiting list, 2000 of whom need 1-2 bedrooms. The proposals provide a mixed tenure scheme, of 20 affordable rent flats, five private rented flats, and two shared ownership houses. 

There is a significant need for this type of housing, and throughout the pre-app and planning process, CBH has responded to the sensitivities of the site, including the relationship of the proposed flats with existing dwellings, landscaping and parking considerations.  CBH has tried to overcome concerns of residents of Pinewood Drive, by amending the plans twice, resulting in the loss of two dwellings, thus allowing the block of flats to be stepped back from Pinewood Drive.  Window detailing has also been amended, the roof terrace reduced in size and repositioned to front Princess Elizabeth Way, to retain privacy of adjoining dwellings. Apologises for the errors in the report with the scale of the drawings – will review this with the architect and  update the plans accordingly

CBH engaged an arboriculturalist to work with the senior trees officer in reviewing the proposed landscaping strategy.  This is currently out to tender for a landscape architect, and a detailed plan will be discussed and agreed with CBC in due course. Concerns with  parking provision are noted, particularly in relation to the proximity of the site to GCHQ which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Planning Application Documents:

Officer introduction

MP introduced the application relating to a site on King Alfred Way, close to Hales Road junction, which until recently accommodated 14 lock-up garages. In 2018, permission was granted for the redevelopment of the site, to provide four 2-bed dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping.  This has been implemented and construction is under way.  In February this year, an application for a revised  scheme was submitted to provide an extra floor of accommodation on Plots 3 and 4 to the rear of the site; permission has been implemented, and provides both dwellings with an additional bedroom and en-suite.  The current application is similar, seeking planning permission for a second floor to Plots 1 and 2 at the front of the site.  This is the only consideration in this application, and members should be looking at acceptability regarding design.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Babbage due to local residents’ concerns.  Officers are content that it will result in no loss amenity, and the recommendation is to permit, with conditions.

Public speaking

Neighbour, in objection

The JCS states that the need to integrate new development well with the existing communities, have regard for the character of the area, and cause no unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity.  The objections to the addition of another floor to these dwellings show that this proposal fails to comply with the JCS.  The building would loom over and dominate existing homes and gardens; its overbearing height  will be oppressive, and it is wrong to say these are not considerations when there is no slide-rule for judging these matters.  In addition, the properties stand up a  slope from the existing houses, making the additional floor, in effect, at least 3.5 storeys high.  The dark render not in place when committee members visited the site – is oppressive.  Neighbours have valid concerns about loss of light, although this issue is dismissed by the council.

The visual connect of outdoor and indoor space is a basic principle of good architecture and mental health. To approve plans which block connection to the sky from people’s own rear ground floor windows is offensive and an amenity issue. There is a material difference between the former and the current proposals – the gardens are shorter gardens with no natural screening or mature trees.  Loss of privacy will be an issue for many residents, and to say this is addressed by frosted glass or a 3-metre tree is derisory. The recommendation cites the council’s own regulations for residential alterations as a relevant policy – interestingly these state that the alterations to residential property should be no higher than the original.  It also ignores increased pressure of parking and highways safety.

The report notes that the similar proposal has progressed without great objection, but only one week was allowed for neighbour consultation on this significant change, and many neighbours were not included – this is the subject of a separate formal complaint, which is not relevant here, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Planning Application Documents

Officer introduction

CH introduced the application for two-storey rear extension and a single storey front porch following demolition of the existing rear extension and garage.  The scheme has been revised throughout the application process, reducing the projection of the rear extension and changing the roof to hipped.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Horwood, due to its overbearing nature and for being out of keeping with the area.

Public speaking

None.

Member debate

MC:  the semi-detached garage shares a wall with the neighbouring property.  Would like reassurance that this will be worked into the application, causing no damage to the garage, with the wall left in situ.

DB:  was going to ask the same thing -  hopes the developers will secure the structural integrity of neighbouring garage.

CH, in response:

-          the party wall act will ensure a safe and appropriate outcome, and that these matters will be dealt with satisfactorily.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Planning Application Documents

Planning Application Documents

Officer introduction

DO introduced the application to repair the roof of the 1950s addition to rear of the Pump Room, currently used as an office.  It is at Committee because CBC owns the land and building. The current roof is asbestos and the skylights are failing.   There are no objections, and the conservation officer, who prepared the report, is happy for the work to go ahead.   The recommendation is to approve. 

Public speaking

None.

Member debate

None

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

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 18^th April 2019.

DO reminded members that at last month’s meeting, they delayed approval of the exempt minutes from the meeting held in March, subject to DO finding out whether make clear to public that transport concerns would not be included as a refusal reason.  This has been followed up with email which has been circulated to members as an exempt item.

Vote to agree minutes:  unanimous