Agenda and minutes

Apologies received from Cllrs Pinegar, McCloskey and Fifield.

Cllr Barrell is a substitute for Cllr Pinegar.

Apologies were received from Councillors Fifield, McCloskey and Pineger.  Councillor Barrell attended as a substitute.

Item 5a: The Wilson:  Councillor Clark is on the board of the Cheltenham Trust.  She did not take part in the debate or vote on this item. 

Cllr Payne had visited sites 5b to 5e inclusive, and has knowledge of The Wilson.

Cllr Barrell had visited sites 5c and 5f, and has knowledge of The Wilson the and Land at Shurdington Road site.

Cllr Baker had visited sites 5b, 5c and 5f.

Cllr Clark had visited sites 5b and 5f.

Cllr Seacome, Barnes and Oliver also have knowledge of The Wilson.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17/02/22 .

Minutes of the meeting held on 17^th February were agreed and signed as a true record.

Planning application documents

Listed building consent documents

The case officer introduced the application, outlining the key considerations.

In response to a Member question, she confirmed that although the proposed works related to the modern part of the building, listed building consent was required in addition to planning permission because the two parts were linked.

There was no debate on this item.

Members then moved to a vote on the officer recommendation to permit/grant.  It was approved.

Planning application documents

The case officer talked Members through the application, highlighting the key issues and considerations.

Public Speakers

A local resident, speaking in objection, said the nearest doctors’ surgery is full and outdated, the nearest supermarket is over a mile away, and the nearest indoor leisure facilities are at Pittville.  The NPPF Section 7 refers to the A46 as vital to Cheltenham’s economy, yet there is no sustainable transport plan. Congestion on the A46 is already severe, and will be made worse as traffic leaving the new estate will have priority over A46 traffic. The cycle paths and footpaths don’t necessarily connect to Cheltenham centre.  With 400 additional houses, 630 cars, and 1200 residents, the carbon footprint will be massive; the GCC transport report should be rejected, as it is at variance with policies in the local transport plan and agreements with the Inspector at the 2016 enquiry. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development when assessed against all NPPF policies – this proposal does no address policies 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14.

A planning agent, on behalf of the applicant, said the scheme follows extensive engagement with officers, consultees and the community, and will provide multiple local benefits.  It is landscape led, with green infrastructure in excess of policy requirements, retaining and enhancing important features, and respectfully designed to protect wider views to and from the site, while optimising urban design principles.  Gloucestershire Highways consider the impact of the proposal on the highways network to be acceptable, with impacts fully mitigated by wide infrastructure improvements, as well as commitment to early delivery of improvements to the Moorend Park Road junction.   Recognising the council’s commitment to climate emergency, revised proposals include a reduction in CO2 emissions 20% beyond current building regs requirements, through a variety of techniques to ensure the scheme is viable. With the inclusion of 140 affordable homes, this is a well-designed, policy-compliant, deliverable scheme, striking the right balance between competing demands and concerns.  

A parish councillor, speaking in objection, said it was disappointing that the delay to resolve traffic problems had not resulted in any significant improvement.  Planning inspectors have refused previous schemes, and ruled that traffic mitigation on the A46 junction must be shown to work.  The proposed mitigation to lengthen the northbound, left-turning lane could improve traffic flow, but will only work if a strip of additional land can be acquired, as the proposed lanes are too narrow for buses and lorries, and could result in accidents.  The additional housing and new school will make the traffic situation worse than that considered by the Inspector in 2014, making Shurdington Road a solid, slow-moving queue at peak times.  Drivers are likely to use Leckhampton Lane as a rat run at peak times, bypassing two schools, and rejoining the A46 at the new Kidnappers Lane roundabout, thus further stifling traffic flow around the south of Cheltenham.  Contrary to the officer’s opinion, part of the site is valued landscape, including R2 and R3, which carries high planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the application.

Public Speaking

The agent said the application was to replace a bungalow with a pair of semi-detached dwellings, in a high-density principal urban area, and brownfield site, compliant with both the JCS and the Local Plan.  In an area of shortfall in housing requirements, there was an expectation that permission be granted unless it caused harm.  Pilley Lane is varied in style, but mostly two-storey dwellings – the bungalow is an anomaly – the officers consider that the proposed dwellings respect the character and style of the area.  The Architects Panel consider the site to be capable of accommodating two dwellings.  Various design suggestions have been taken on board during the process, including reduction of the roof mass, landscaping to the front, and changes in materials, as agreed by condition.  The size has been minimised, and the houses blend in well.  Local member and Parish Council comments have been taken into account, the highways officer is satisfied with access and parking arrangements, neighbouring amenity is not adversely affected. The proposal addresses the housing shortfall in a sustainable location.

Cllr Horwood conceded that there is a variety of properties in Pilley Lane, but pointed out that those next to the chapel at the moment are bungalows, giving an open aspect and suitable prominence to a locally listed building.  Other two-storey houses in the area are modest in scale.  There is concern that this building won’t be subservient to the chapel; it will be overpowering, a huge increase in scale – in effect a bungalow making way for a three-storey building.  Being so high and so close to the chapel, it is possible that it will reduce light to the chapel windows.  A parish councillor has called it ‘grossly insensitive’, saying the colour was wrong for the area, and calling them ‘anywhere houses’.  Pilley Crescent residents are also concerned that a precedent may be set with this application which will change the character of Pilley Lane.

Member question

In response to questions from Members, the case officer confirmed that:

-       A locally indexed building is one of community interest and its setting should be taken into account.  The report states that officers do not consider the impact of the proposal too severe;

-       There may be some impact on light to the chapel, but there are also a number of windows which won’t be affected, so officers are content that the impact won’t be too great;

-       Regarding impact on the neighbouring bungalow, the existing bungalow is immediately adjacent to the boundary, so the neighbouring one is already compromised; the new building is taller but set back from the boundary, and the neighbouring windows likely to be affected serve a box/storage room;

-       A brownfield site is one which has been previously developed;

-       The drawings are to scale and therefore considered accurate;

-       The changes to the proposal are an attempt to reduce its bulk.  The bungalow had a hipped room, but there are lots  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5c

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the proposal.

Public Speaking

The agent thanked officers for working positively with the applicant.  The proposed site is a retail park location, previously the Homebase service yard, and for some years a redundant area of hardstanding.  The applicant has had detailed discussions with the highways authority, are officers are happy with the proposals.  It is not considered that the proposal will generate additional traffic.  The design is contemporary and will fit in well, and the landscaping scheme, including shrubs and grass, will soften the entrance to the retail park.  The proposal will bring an economic benefit in the form of 25-30 flexible jobs, and provide additional choice to the existing food and beverage provision along Tewkesbury Road.

Member questions

In response to questions, the highways officer provided confirmed that:

-       there are two access points to Gallagher Retail Park, and the siting of the proposed development would suggest that the majority of customers will access it from the Manor Road end;

-       the applicant has provided evidence clarifying queue distances at other units, and officers are satisfied that there is enough room to queue.  If cars were further displaced, it would be into the car park rather than the road, and there is a lot of queuing capacity on site.  Officers don’t anticipate any problems with queues on Tewkesbury Road.

Member debate

Members made the following points:

-       the question is whether this additional fast food outlet is necessary.  It will impact the businesses of existing food traders, but as Cheltenham doesn’t have a saturation policy for the number of food businesses, it is difficult to refuse the application on these grounds;

-       at peak times, the car park already operates above its maximum capacity, and an extension to the Next store has yet to be built, reducing parking space further;

-       the hours of business are stated, but it’s hard to believe that within six months there won’t be an application to extend these to 24/7 as other local outlets;

-       there will be a lot of waste from the outlet, and it would be helpful if the use of recyclable packaging could be conditioned;

-       the most likely reason to refuse the application would be on highways grounds – there have been police interventions and security issues with Macdonalds and KFC within yards of this site.  This will get worse when the road becomes busier with Junction 10 traffic.

The case officer confirmed that a standard condition regarding waste management would be included, and that the applicants had submitted a waste management strategy; the application is not significant enough to condition the scope of this.

The highways officer confirmed that changes to Junction 10 are still at consultation stage, with various transport modelling work being done, but this proposal, given the diversity of trips to other retailers and the small number of new trips, is considered de minimus with regard to highways volume now or in the future.

A Member suggested that other food  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5d

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the application.

Public Speaking

A neighbour, speaking in objection, said that the documents associated with the application are factually incorrect - all properties in Swindon Hall Grounds are either bungalows or 1.5 storeys high, including Kynance, referred to as a two-storey dwelling. The proposed building is overbearing and out of scale – a large four-bedroomed house, with a vastly out-of-scale ancillary building which could clearly be used for accommodation in the future.  It is mis-positioned, being north facing, towards The Little Manor; it could easily face east, like other properties in the surrounding area.  It will cause loss of privacy, light and sound pollution, particularly to The Little Manor, with 11 windows facing that property.  The excessive felling of trees will result in nearly half the trees on the site being felled.  A smaller footprint, 1.5-storey, east-facing dwelling would remove all objections.

The applicant spoke in support of his proposal, focussing on the context and background.  Kynance has been his family’s home for 47 years, and having relocated to Cheltenham and been unable to find a suitable property elsewhere, he decided to explore the option of building a family home in the grounds of Kynance. As keen environmentalists, it was important that the new dwelling blend in – this was the architect’s brief – and the use of natural stone, cladding and landscaping, together with tireless work with planning consultants and addressing neighbours’ concerns, including a turning head which will improve access for all.  The result is the best possible proposal.   Some of the trees were already due to be felled, and new planting will mitigate their loss and improve the area.  He said his sole objective was to put down roots, and to nurture his new home and the land around for decades to come.

Member questions

In response to questions from Members, officers confirmed that:

-       the proposal is classed as a self-build scheme, even though it doesn’t appear on the register; it will still need to go through the normal process;

-       regarding the proposed outbuilding, the red dotted line in the drawings shows

what is there now – various outbuildings and sheds – and although the proposed is larger than the existing outbuildings, it has reduced in footprint and height during the process, and now sits comfortably between the houses;

-       regarding the trees, some of them need to be felled for this proposal, but others were already due to be felled, as unsound or causing other issues;

-       a planning application would be required to change the use of the proposed outbuilding from workshop/garden store to a dwelling; a specific condition to ensure this isn’t needed;

-       the distances from the new dwelling to its neighbours are set out in the officer report at para. 6.37.  These exceed policy requirements.

Member debate

Members made the following points:

-       the turning head won’t benefit all the neighbours, as stated by the applicant – it will benefit the residents of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5e

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the report, highlighting key planning matters and a summary of conditions.

Public Speaking

A neighbour, speaking in objection, said he had concerns about a number of aspects of the development relating to noise and pollution.  The new plan which moved the flats back to fit in with the properties on Pennine Road would result in a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 14 to 12, with rear access to the property via Prescott Walk and an unadopted road - a nine-fold increase in traffic and pollution.  There is no indication as to who will be responsible for the unadopted road going forward. Prescott Walk is too narrow to accommodate two vehicles passing, resulting in the footpath being used for parking; there is no footpath on the unadopted road to allow pedestrian access to the new flats as stated.  Additional local traffic exiting onto Priors Road from Prestbury Road, could present a serious risk to this busy road, already significantly impacted by the 300 new houses opposite.  It is proposed that drainage from the proposed development will run to the rear, across the unadopted road to Prescott Walk and then Prestbury Road.  This area is already severely affected by surface water run-off and flooding during heavy rainfall, sometimes making them unusable to pedestrians.  The plans include a cycle store and no real mitigation to noise and nuisance for people living behind the property.

The agent, speaking in support, said that one of the reasons the application was called to Committee relates to ecology. An ecologist has worked with residents in relation to a badger sett off site to ensure its ongoing protection and a planning condition will ensure this is ongoing.  Another concern is the level of parking, but the proposal includes more spaces than the one per apartment required by the Gloucestershire Manual for Streets, providing 12 in total, plus electric vehicle charging facility and a large cycle store.  The application has been revised at the request of officers, setting it further back in the site to respect the building line; the Architects Panel considers it will enhance the area.  Officers have confirmed that the proposal is policy-compliant.

Member questions

In response to questions from Members, officers confirmed that:

-       the unadopted road is the small strip of land in front of the garages;

-       the position of the proposed bike store, to the rear of the property, is a common feature, and shouldn’t prove a security issue.  There will be no public access to the rear of the site;

-       the car parking spaces to the front are part of the landscaping scheme, which includes shrub planting;  this, and Condition 15, will ensure that the bin storage space is protected and isn’t used for car parking;

-       if a drop kerb is required for access, this will be dealt with as a separate application as it falls outside the red line of the site.  An informative can be included, to make sure the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5f

Appeal updates for information

Information on recent appeals had been circulated in advance of the meeting, and was duly noted.

The Chair confirmed that Planning View would be reinstated, starting in April, and scheduled for the Thursday before the meeting from May onwards.