Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Oliver and Cllr Clark attended as a substitute.

There were none.  Cllr Clark would be speaking on item 5a and would not thereafter be present for that item.

Cllr Nelson had visited the sites in respect of 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d

Cllr Andrews had visited the site in respect of 5c

Cllr Clark had visited the site in respect of 5b

Cllr Fisher had visited the sited at 5b and 5c

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th October 2022..

The minutes were approved with an amendment to the previously published minutes to be made on the vote on minute 8 (22/01439/FUL Pittville Pump Rooms) which had set out the result incorrectly as 4 for and 5 against, whereas the result had been 5 for and 4 against.

Planning Application Documents

The conservation officer introduced the report as published.

There were two speakers, one the agent on behalf of the applicant and the other a Ward Councillor.

The agent made the following points in support:

·         The applicant has owned and maintained the property for over thirty years.

·         The works that are being referred to were carried out in 2020 as the asphalt was peeling away.  The works were carried out quickly to prevent damage to the property.

·         The lead replacement was recommended to the applicant by a stone mason as the only viable option.

·         Since the work has been carried out the internal of the building has remained dry and well maintained.

·         The same materials have been used for other listed buildings in the town.

·         It has been over-looked in the officer report that the same parapet repairs have been carried out on the Municipal Offices, The Queens Hotel, 131 The Promenade, houses in Royal Crescent and in Berkeley Place.

·         Since 1991 the owner has been proud of the renovation works they have carried out on the property, it is the best preserved property on the street.

·         The applicant runs a successful business from the property with 12 employees, this significantly aids the upkeep of the building in the long term.

·         This is a traditional parapet repair which is in line with the NPPF and the development plan.

Cllr Clark who spoke as Ward Councillor made the following points:

·         The Conservation Officer has made very sound arguments about why this should not be permitted and the applicant should have applied for planning permission before carrying out the work, however she believed that the application should be permitted.

·         There were mitigating circumstances with this application and a precedent for this kind of cladding has already been set.

·         Without the investment of private owners, the council would not be able to maintain the upkeep of heritage buildings and this building is in excellent repair both inside and out.

·         There is a danger that if this application is refused it will discourage private ownership of Grade 2 listed buildings.  People should be supported who keep buildings such as this in good repair.

·         The new roof has been put on the property as water was damaging the fabric of the building, and has insulated the building in a much better way than it was previously.

·         It will have to be accepted that there will be retro fitting of heritage properties to meet the challenges of climate change.

·         There has been exactly this type of repair to many other buildings in the town with the same style of cladding including the Municipal Offices.

The responses to Member questions were as follows:

·         It is difficult to tell if the repairs have been detrimental, water ingress could be a problem, sometimes damage does not get found until years later.

·         The officer is not aware that the physical integrity of the building has suffered.

·         There was no consultation prior to the work being carried out, Section 9 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Planning Application Documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were three speakers on the item, an objector, the agent on behalf of the applicant and a Ward Councillor.

The objector made the following points:

·         The objector started by requesting a deferral as the ecology report was only uploaded the night before and there had not been an opportunity to review them.

·         The reports will give you to believe that all the issues have been resolved but they have not.

·         Primary school children have found more species of moth and grasses than the ecologists.

·         Natural England advice has been tightened up to avoid destroying nature.  This application will destroy a badger sett.

·         There have been over 120 species of moth identified on the site.

·         There is a claim that this should not be allocated as a local wildlife site, however it clearly is.  There is no mention of the hay cuts that are carried out.

·         Due to Severn Trent there are 64 years’ worth of sewerage and the last time that there was a problem Charlton Court Road bore the brunt of the overflow of waste matter.

·         Historic England still object as do the Woodland Trust.

The agent on behalf of the applicant made the following points:

·         The site has been allocated for a minimum of 25 homes to contribute to the housing needs of the whole community in Cheltenham.

·         There has been no objection from the Highway Authority, there has never been refusal on grounds of accessibility or highways.

·         Neither Planning Inspector has refused planning permission for larger housing schemes on grounds of adverse impact on the AONB.

·         Neither Natural England or the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has raised objections to the scheme.

·         The management of the open space provides maximum mitigation and enhancement to the badgers in the short, medium and long term.

·         There has been no objection from Severn Trent and the LLFA confirm that the drainage is acceptable.

·         There has been no harm identified to residential amenity.

·         There have been no objections from Sport England.

·         The Council’s specialist heritage officer has stated that the application has been significantly amended and should not be objected to in heritage terms.

·         The Council’s Tree Officer does not object subject to the 5 conditions that specifically relate to the protection of trees.

·         Officers have concluded that there has been a good response to the Climate Change SPD by these proposals.

Councillor Matt Babbage then spoke as the Ward Councillor and made the following points:

·         With regard to the three previous applications the decisions have been upheld. 

·         Some of the same objections still remain, road access is still an issue.

·         A recent inspection raised possible harm to heritage assets and habitats.

·         There is conflict with HD4, SD8 and SD9

·         There was a request made for a deferral as the 70 pages of ecological report had been published less than 24 hours before the committee.

·         It was stated that the new plans did not differ that much from the new plans with regard to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

PLEASE NOTE:  consideration of this application has been deferred.

Planning Application Documents

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Planning Application Documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There was only one speaker on the application who was the applicant and he made the following points:

·         They were tenants in the property for four years before they purchased the property and were aware of the cost and time involved in maintaining the lower garden.

·         They have bought in a very experienced team to advise and assist them.

·         Before the application was put in, the base line application went to Severn Trent who approved the plans; they will do everything they can to comply with any advice they are given.

The responses to Member questions were as follows:

·         Any concerns with regard to flooding will be dealt with by infiltration trenches in the back garden.

·         The flooding engineer was happy with the proposal, subject to the condition which covered management as well as retention.

There was no Member debate and the matter went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

For: 9

UNANIMOUS - PERMIT

Planning Application Documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There was only one speaker who spoke in objection to the application and he made the following points:

·         If the permission is granted there will be a problem with lack of daylight into the kitchen window which will impact the enjoyment of the home.

·         On the longest day of the year there will be a loss of approximately six hours sunlight.

·         The clear glazed door will effect light to the doorway.

·         The light survey that was carried out shows that it will fail the light test.

·         The only benefit of the extension is to the applicant.

·         The design is over bearing and over shadowing.

The responses to Member questions were as follows:

·         A light test had been carried out and the side facing window had failed that, but officers were happy that there was an alternative light source to the room, that this was a source that counted, and officers had not asked for any further testing to be done.

The matter went to debate where the following points were raised:

·         The backs of the houses face due south apart from the kitchen window, there should be no loss of light, believed that there would be minimal harm other than to the kitchen.

·         The concerns from the neighbour seem valid as the light will be blocked from the kitchen.  The view from the kitchen window will be a wall which could be depressing.  The lack of light will adversely affect the amenity.

·         The reasons not to support by one Member were: SL1, SD14 and SD4.

The matter went to  the vote on the officers recommendation to permit:

For: 2

Against: 6

Abstentions: 1 

A motion for refusal was then made on the basis that the application was contrary to SL1, SD14 and SD4.  The matter then went to the vote to refuse:

For: 6

Against: 2

Abstentions: 1

REFUSED

Head of Planning will present the appeals update.

The details of the appeals were noted.  Members were advised that as regards the Oakley Farm decision issued last month a copy of which had been circulated previously, the main concern of the Inspector has been the council’s lack of five year housing land supply.  A Member noted that existing development on three sides had been brought about by a previous planning permission granted by the council.

None.