Agenda and minutes

Councillor McCloskey.

1.    18/02337/CONDIT 48 Suffolk Road

Councillor Barrell – is speaking as ward councillor and reading a statement in objection from a neighbour who cannot attend.  Will retire from the Chamber during the debate.

2.    18/02560/FUL Tree Tops, Southam Road

i.              Councillor Baker – knows the applicant – will speak in support, then retire from the Chamber during the debate.

ii.             Councillor Payne – is ward councillor; was invited to discuss the application with the developer but declined; has made no public comment on the application.

3.    19/00051/FUL 33 Gloucester Road

Councillor Atherstone – is ward councillor for St Peter’s, but has not had any engagement in this application.

i.              Councillor Barrell has visited 18/02171/OUT Land Adjacent to Oakhurst Rise on a previous occasion; she has also visited 18/02337/CONDIT 48 Suffolk Road, and 19/00056/FUL 66 Beeches Road.

ii.             As Members did not visit Charlton Court on Planning View, Councillor Barnes had subsequently viewed it on Google Earth and other pictures.

There were none.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17^th January 2019 were signed as a true record, without amendment.

Before the start of the meeting, Councillor Barnes requested that members of the public in the gallery internalise their views rather than disturb the meeting.

Officer introduction

MP: Explained that the application site relates to a semi-detached property located within a residential area on Beeches Road. The applicant is seeking planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension following the demolition of an existing detached garage. She advised that for transparency, the application is at planning committee as the applicant’s wife works for the council within the Place and Growth Division.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support

0 objections

0 abstentions

PERMIT

Officer introduction

MP:  Members will recall the outline application for 90 houses which was refused by Planning Committee in July 2018, on the following grounds:  loss of veteran trees, impact on the setting of listed buildings, impact on highways and amenity of local residents, impact on an existing badger sett within the site and biodiversity generally, and visual impact on the landscape character.  This revised application is seeking outline permission for 69 houses, including 40% affordable housing, with access again via Oakhurst Rise.  Highways officers consider the impact to be acceptable.  The application covers access, lay-out and scale; appearance and landscaping will be covered under reserved matters should the principle be considered acceptable.  As set out in the officer report, the officer recommendation is to permit subject to a signed S106 agreement to secure affordable housing, and a revised schedule conditions as set out in the blue update.

GB:  there are additional representations from Charlton Kings Parish Council and an additional officer update. Advised Members that, at his discretion, there will be two public speakers on each side, for strictly three minutes each, and advised speakers that they will be timed and informed 30 seconds before they need to finish. 

Mr Gander, Cheltenham Flood Action Group, in objection

Has studied the flood risk assessment.  The proposal should be rejected because it completely fails to deliver the JCS overarching strategy requirement that all new development provides an overall reduction in flood risk.  Adjusting for climate change is not a reduction because that is an existing risk. When we analyse flood risks, we need to ask if the model methodology up-to-date and fit for purpose, the assumptions reasonable, the data reliable, what happens if the model goes wrong, and do the model outcomes pass the common sense test?  This model uses IH24 methodology instead of the more up-to-date FEH methodology recommended by the Environment Agency.    This is an old model, not right for this design. Neither is it consistent with the JCS, which says these plans must use up-to-date modelling technology

The first thing that makes no sense  is that the plan wants us to believe the lie that  28,100 square metres of this site comprises permeable soft landscaping when we know that the geology of the site is  impermeable and that no infiltration is possible.  Hoping we don’t spot this trick, they then input into the model only 13,600 sq metres as the surface area to use as the basis for the SUDs design – the trick enables them to reduce surface area used to calculate surface water run-off by 70%, and generate an impossibly low   predicted flow rate for a steeply-sloping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Officer introduction

GD introduced the application as above, he advised that permission had previously been given which enabled the premises to change from use class A1 (retail) to A3 (restaurant and café).  The application is seeking to vary an existing condition which restricts the operating hours of the existing extraction fan and extend the operating hours to 10:30pm Monday to Saturday and to 5:30pm on Sunday and bank holidays. The officer recommendation is to permit subject to the installation of the proposed noised attenuation measures. The application is before committee at the request of Cllr Dilys Barrell due to the potential impact on neighbouring amenity.

Miss Smart, agent, in support

Miss Smart advised that she was acting on behalf of the applicants who were seeking to vary condition 4 of the approved planning application which deals purely with the use of the extraction equipment. She explained that the current hours of use restrict the operating needs of business and as such the applicant was seeking to extend the operating hours of the extraction fan, she confirmed that the operating hours of the restaurant and garden would remain unchanged as a result of the proposal. She highlighted that the bakery was an award winning business which contributed to the local economy, however, the current constraints placed significant restrictions on the business, only allowing them to trade at lunch time. The business predicted they had lost approximately £50,000 in revenue over the last year due to their inability to prepare and serve food into the evening; the bakery element was also unable to function in the mornings. She explained that the noise attenuation measures proposed had been advised by technical noise consultants to ensure noise was kept to an acceptable level for neighbouring areas; a technical noise report also accompanied the application. She noted that environmental health had raised no objections to the proposed noise attenuation measures and the officer report had concluded that the extended hours would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents. She reiterated that approving the application would support the growth of a local successful business as the restrictions had inevitably impacted on the businesses viability.

Councillor Barrell, in objection

Councillor Barrell read out a statement on behalf of the residents at 44 Suffolk Road who were unable to attend the meeting. In the letter the neighbours explained that their property consisted of their business (Eden Health and Beauty Spa) at the front and their residential property to the rear. They were concerned that the outside cooking area extension had been erected without planning permission, and this was located just 6 feet away from their bedroom. They stressed that the business is located in a conservation and residential area and they are regularly affected by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Officer introduction

GD introduced the application as above; he explained that planning permission had been granted in 2018 for the demolition of an existing bungalow and erection of a contemporary two storey dwelling. The application was granted with a condition relating to the first floor windows to the north, east and south elevations. He advised that the applicant was seeking to vary this condition to enable two first floor windows to the east elevation to be side hung with restricted opening, both would be obscurely glazed and both served bathrooms. He confirmed that the original condition still applies to the other windows on the first floor. The recommendation was to permit as per the reasons outlined in the officer report. The application is before Committee at the request of Cllr Paul McCloskey due to the potential impact on neighbouring amenity.

Mr Hayward, neighbour, in objection

Mr Hayward explained that his objection was in relation to the upstairs window of Mr Unwin’s property that, when open, faces South and overlooks his garden. This could be evidenced by the papers submitted to the Council which show window A overlooking a large part of his rear garden, thereby reducing his privacy.  He informed committee that he had no issue with the windows opening north over the front garden with the restrictor at a maximum of 16cm, although he had been advised that the restrictors could be removed. He noted that Mr Unwin’s comment regarding the fact a man of average height could still look out of an open window above 1.7m make that type of window more of an objection. He therefore suggested that the windows opening as they are but facing north not south may be worth discussing.

Mr Unwin, applicant, in support

Explained that the window in its current state was a genuine error, however, he hoped that he could demonstrate that the existing window was on par with what the current conditions called for with regards to safeguarding privacy. He highlighted that the restrictors were permanently fixed with solid brass catches and were riveted to the outside window frame so would need to be mechanically removed from the outside. He noted that the current conditions placed no restrictions on the opening angle of the windows and that the view from both windows was limited to a driveway at the back and a private road to the front. He further noted that both windows were located in bathrooms with toilets in front of them making it difficult to lean out and due to privacy reasons they were unlikely to be near the windows. He highlighted that the house directly opposite had no windows of its own on the elevation facing his house and currently it was physically impossible to look into the gardens or houses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Officer introduction

CD introduced the application as above, she explained that the property was a two storey residential dwelling in Prestbury accessed off Southam Road and the applicant was seeking retrospective planning permission for the increase in height of the ridge of the original dwelling. She advised that the other extensions and garage had already been granted permission, therefore, only the increase in ridge height was to be considered by the Committee. The application was at Committee as a result of a parish council objection.

Ms Jackson, neighbour in objection

Ms Jackson explained that neither herself or her neighbours were against upgrades to any properties including Tree Tops, they were proud of where they live and welcomed any improvements which make for better surroundings. Their objection, however, came from the way the project had been handled by the applicant. She felt that the construction was overbearing and was dismayed that it was done without consultation with all its neighbours. She highlighted that the applicant had provided various drawings which were inconsistent and confusing, and once permission had been obtained, the applicant went on to build 1 meter above what was granted, making the 2 storey extension taller and wider than was accepted.  She felt that the extra meter in the roof affected neighbouring properties light and privacy and created a significant modification to the whole of the extension which was now extremely imposing. She felt that the applicant had disregarded the planning regulations, its procedures and neighbours and that granting retrospective permission would encourage other builders to carry on breaking the rules in future. She felt that by removing 4 rows of breeze blocks from the back extension, the construction would at least, conform to the original drawings. She questioned whether planning permission would have been granted to the applicant had he submitted such a high elevation in the first place and requested that Members of the committee be vigilant on future applications in order to prevent further extensions. 

Mr Bence, applicant, in support

Mr Bence explained that he and his wife had lived in Prestbury for 13 years and were very much at the heart of the community. They had hoped Tree Tops would be their forever family home and a place to bring up their children. He explained that the original plans had been shown to the neighbours at Grey Gables and all the adjoining houses to the rear of their property on Mill Lane. He stated that they had all believed it to be in keeping with the area and showed no concern. They were disappointed that their ward councillors were unwilling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Officer introduction

DO introduced the application as above, he explained that the application relates to a top floor apartment at 14 Regency House the applicant seeking erection of an external awning over the sitting room window. The recommendation is to permit as per the reasons outlined in the officer report. The application is before committee at the request of Cllr Klara Sudbury due to the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

0 in objection

0 abstention

PERMIT

Officer introduction

CD introduced the application as above; she advised that the application relates to a 2 storey mid terrace property at 33 Gloucester Road. She explained that the applicant is seeking retrospective planning permission for a 7 bed HMO which has been in use since 2015. The application is at committee at the request of Councillor Willingham.

Councillor Willingham, in objection

Councillor Willingham requested that the committee refuse the application; he indicated that the matter should have been the subject of stronger enforcement due to a breach of planning. He noted that the planning application had been submitted with inaccurate and incomplete information on the application form. Further concerns included the fact that the public had not been informed of the pre-application advice given to the applicant, which was contrary to the openness and transparency required in the planning process. The applicant had also answered no when questioned whether “parking is relevant to this application” which he considered must have been a misinterpretation or simply, an incorrect statement, particularly given that this was a family dwelling, in a permit parking area that only permits two permits per dwelling. Councillor Willingham was concerned that additional vehicles would park on Alstone Avenue or Alstone Croft, causing danger and irritation to those residents, or in planning terms unacceptable harm to the amenity of the area. 

He further noted that in areas with a high density of HMOs, there are noisy parties running late into the night during fresher’s week and following the exam period. There are also issues of improperly presented waste, with overflowing bins and recycling that blows down the street. He was concerned that the Council had not retained the protections afforded by HS3 from the Local Plan and that these documents had remained on the website.

He highlighted that the back lanes to the rear of the property were extremely dilapidated, evidence in his opinion, of the real harm that afflicts an area when failures in the planning process allow it to be neglected by transient tenants and absentee landlords. He explained that the lane becomes a fly-tipping ground for departing tenants and is a drain on council resources and a source of regular casework. He felt that the fact that no-one had objected to the application demonstrates the extant harm because no-one was concerned enough to object, or in some cases had little faith in the planning, planning enforcement or enforcement processes.  He reasoned that whilst it is just one more person, they needed to be cautious of the cumulative impact and was concerned that there has been no assessment of when the density of HMOs in this area would reach breaking point.

He emphasised that it was not his intention  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.