Agenda and minutes

Councillor Barnes thanked Councillor Baker for standing in as Chair at the last few meetings.  He reminded Members that the meeting was being live-streamed, and that they must be present for the whole debate in order to vote.  He advised those present that the officer presentations were can be viewed on the website, and checked that the public speakers were present.

Apologies were received from Councillor Collins.

Councillor Barrell joined the meeting midway through item 5b and as such was advised to abstain on the vote.

Mendip, Tryes Road:  Councillor Barrell is a member of SPJARA, the residents’ group which has commented on the application, but she has not been involved in their discussions or consideration.

Mendip, Tryes Road:  Councillors Barrell, Oliver, Cooke and McCloskey.

Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2020

Councillor Barnes signed the minutes as a true and correct record.

There were none.

   20/00552/FUL   Car Park, Chester Walk, Cheltenham

https://publicaccess.cheltenham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q7SHGPELJU800

The senior planning officer introduced the application for an innovation hub in the town centre, a revised application following permission granted in June 2019, to be situation in the car park to the rear of the children’s library to the east of the Grade 1-listed St Mary’s Church.   It is part of a wider masterplan to improve access connectivity and footfall to the church grounds and lower High Street, which has been awarded a government funding grant. The current proposal has a similar profile to the approved scheme, but is now a modular construction rather built with shipping containers.  The industrial aesthetic is retained.  As the principle is already established and highways matters have been addressed, the main issues to consider are  the impact on the surrounding heritage assets. Both Historic England and CBC’s conservation officer have concerns, but these only focus on the heritage impact; the planning officer has to take all material planning considerations into account. Having done so, the recommendation is to permit, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Public Speaking:

i.          Jason Pritchard, agent, in support, outlined the main difference between the previously approved project and the current scheme – the modular construction.  He said the lay-out would be broadly the same, but there is now a single point of entry orientated towards the west door of the Minster, with new seating, lighting and footpaths to open up the area. The design is contemporary in nature but subservient to the minster, and the building will be highly sustainable, benefitting from additional investment from the Government’s ‘Build Better Fund’.  It will host and facilitate a variety of initiatives that will have a positive economic, educational, cultural, social and environmental impact on the town, and act as a catalyst to major improvements to the area, as well as being a vital frontier outpost to Cyber Cheltenham.

ii.          Cllr Hay, in support, said that the scheme will transform a run-down, under-utilised part of town, which suffers significant anti-social behaviour problems, not helped by poor linkages and high buildings.  She told Members that £3.114m of government money will help deliver this scheme together with a programme of additional benefits to the area.  It will provide jobs, co-working space for the fast-growing cyber and creative sectors, and a much-needed flexible performance space.  The scheme is part of the Council’s wider ambition and corporate priority to make Cheltenham the cyber capital of the UK, and provide much-needed opportunities which will support the town and the council’s financial and economic recovery. The government funding is contingent on planning consent being granted, and requires schemes to be completed by December 2021. The application complies with the three key principles of the NPPF – economic, social and environmental objectives, and Members must give weight to these important planning issues.

Member Questions

In response to Members’ questions, the senior planning officer confirmed that:

-           The applicants have remained in close contact with the Minster throughout, and Diocese continues to support the project;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

  20/01004/FUL   Mendip, Tryes Road, Cheltenham

https://publicaccess.cheltenham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QCBJP7EL08300

The planning officer introduced the application, at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman and the residents’ association.  She showed Members various elevations and floor plans, and photographs taken from the adjoining property, looking towards the application site. The key considerations are design, impact on the conservation area, and impact on the neighbouring property.

Public Speaking

i.          Mrs Lovell, neighbour, in objection, said her family felt this proposal to be a step too far, with the two-storey extension resulting in substantial loss of light and overshadowing.  She understood that planners rely on the 45 degree light, but was concerned that this should be a rule of thumb and not followed slavishly.  She said the proposed extension will create a ‘tunnel effect’ on her property.  In addition, she believed there would be loss of privacy in her garden, and also the gardens and rear windows of houses in Painswick Road.  She felt that the consequence of repeated attempts to reduce the size of the extension to gain planning approval had resulted in a strange-looking, box-like dwelling, which would not preserve or enhance the conservation area.

ii.          Cllr Harman, in objection, felt that the speaker had put her case eloquently, and hoped Members would take her comments into account. He said he has visited the neighbour’s garden and noted the overpowering impact the extension will have – other Members have not been able to do this – and noted the neighbour’s comment about the impact on Painswick Road – this is not detailed in the report, but will clearly have a dramatic and devastating effect.  SPJARA has objected, and although some changes have marginally reduced the impact, this is not sufficient and the design solution is not aesthetically pleasing.  He hoped that the Committee will agree and refuse the application.

Member Questions:

In response to Members’ questions, the planning officer confirmed that:

-           The tunnel effect on light to the neighbouring property, with extensions on both sides, already exists, but it is felt that the first floor extension is far enough away from the window not to make it any worse;

-           The 45 degree light test for a door – the patio doors in this case – takes a centre point 1.6m from floor level and half way across the window to assess a pass or fail. 

-           The previous scheme was much larger, and following long and complicated discussions it was suggested that the application be withdrawn and a new one submitted, with subsequent re-consultation.  This was a neater was to deal with the situation.

Member debate:

Councillor Cooke said that as with so many applications, it is a balance of benefit between the applicant wanting more space and the effect on the neighbour’s property.  He felt that looking at the pictures, the patio doors will be substantially shielded, whether or not the scheme passes the light test.  The neighbouring garden and patio area will be shaded from the afternoon sun.  This extension will also have a small effect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Details of recent appeals.

The appeals update had been circulated to Members.

There was no other business to discuss.

Next meeting:  17th September

The meeting ended at 3.30pm.