Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Seacome and Wheeler.

As a non-executive director of the Cheltenham Trust, Councillor Clark declared an interest in Agenda item 6 23/01123/LBC The Wilson Art Gallery and Museum – she will leave the Chamber when this application is being considered.

Councillors Andrews and Nelson both declared that they had visited both sites.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th July 2023.

Councillor Oliver asked for the following correction to be made:

Page 6, Agenda item 8:  23/00860/FUL 14 Lincoln Avenue, bullet point 3:

There will be overlooking of the garden, which will mean that the neighbours will be extremely overlooked.  This would be deemed as a loss of amenity and that is acceptable unacceptable.

With this correction, the minutes were approved and duly signed as a true record of the meeting.

Planning application documents

On behalf of the case officer, the Interim Head of Planning presented the report, at committee at the request of Councillors Pineger and Willingham. He highlighted that this is a parcel of undeveloped land in the principal urban area and part of an allocated housing site under Policy HD5 of the Local Plan.  It is adjacent to another plot where the same developer has extant planning permission for 13 dwellings. 

The scheme has been amended during consideration to reduce the number of dwellings from seven to six, improve landscaping and planting, include mitigation measures for contaminated land and drainage, and retain a strip of land adjacent to Plot 6, to help facilitate a future pedestrian link to the King George V playing fields.  It is regrettable that no affordable housing is included, but appropriate viability testing has been undertaken, and this is not therefore a reason to refuse permission.  With no five-year housing land supply, the NPPF states that permission should be granted unless the adverse impact of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefit.  Officers consider the scheme to be acceptable, and recommend approval, subject to a number of conditions.

Public speaking

Neighbour, in objection

Speaking on behalf of residents, the neighbour began by listing their concerns.  He said the increase in traffic and single vehicular entry/exit point for the new development will heavily impact the already congested area.  Parking for the new houses, none of which are affordable, is likely to overspill into the existing estate, where it is already an issue due to the high number of HMOs.

Narrow roads, no real turning areas, and overgrown hedges around Wharfdale Square block and impair drivers’ vision, causing problems for all types of vehicles; construction vehicles will experience the same, thereby causing major obstructions, inconvenience and potential health and safety issues. Inconsiderate parking by school-run parents already causes issues, forcing drivers to drive on the wrong side of the road or perform evasive manoeuvres to avoid collisions, and with no pavements in Wharfdale Square, pedestrians and children often use the brick-paved roads.  Near misses are common, and the traffic will increase significantly with the new houses.

He concluded by saying that the future of the area and its community is very important to residents, who feel their daily lives will be negatively impacted by the new development.  They do not feel they have been properly consulted or given the opportunity to discuss their concerns, and request a public consultation if the plans are permitted, to give residents reassurance that the strict measures imposed on the developers will minimise the impact on existing residents.

Applicant, in support

The applicant began by saying that all the key issues and amendments were thoroughly explained in the officer reports.  He said the major sewers and large water main had created some technical constraints, but these had been taken into account.  This is an allocated housing site in a sustainable location, and will provide much-needed modern homes in the location. 

Aware of concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Planning application documents

Councillor Clark left the Chamber, having declared an interest in this item.

The Interim Head of Planning explained that this application is at committee before the end of the second consultation period to allow CBC to meet its performance targets.  He said the recommendation is subject to no further adverse comments.

The Senior Heritage and Conservation Officer introduced his report, for various internal works to the first floor of The Wilson Art Gallery and Museum, including a mezzanine floor, covering of windows, and replacement doors. He noted that the changes don’t significantly affect the historical features of the building and could all be reversed at a future date without harm.

There were no public speakers or Member questions on this item.

A Member commented that he supported the application, which will allow more artworks to be displayed.

Vote on recommendation to grant listed building consent

8 in support – unanimous

GRANT

For information.

The Interim Head of Planning used the opportunity to clarify some recent misreporting in The Times and on Gloucestershire Live, concerning the Miller Homes application for 350 homes in Leckhampton.  He said that The Times article suggested that the Secretary of State had called in the council’s decision to approve the scheme, but this was not the case.  The council actually refused the scheme for reasons around construction and sustainability; Miller Homes submitted an appeal, but the Secretary of State called in the case prior to its consideration at an informal hearing.  At the hearing, the planning inspector said the decision would be made by the Planning Inspectorate, but subsequent to the closure of the informal hearing, she wrote to relevant parties to say this was incorrect and the Secretary of State would make the final decision.

He said the process will now be that the planning inspector will provide a report to the Secretary of State, who will consider the case, although there is no indication of when he may make his decision.

In response to a Member’s question as to how the Secretary of State could call in a decision already refused by CBC, the Interim Head of Planning said that the Secretary of State delegates decision making on appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, but retains to right to make the decision himself.  The Legal Officer further clarified by saying the correct terminology for this is a ‘recovered appeal’ – the Secretary of State has recovered authority to make the final decision on the appeal.

A Member noted that this wasn’t the first time the press had misreported planning decisions and felt it was important to make the public aware, through a press release.  The Interim Head of Planning confirmed that the Cabinet portfolio holder distributed a statement after the Times article, though this doesn’t appear to have been reported anywhere, and he is going to make another statement to set the record straight locally.  The Chair commented that he had emailed the Gloucestershire Live journalist, but received no response.

As ward councillor for Leckhampton, a Member was disappointed not to have received the letter from the planning inspector explaining the situation, as promised at the informal hearing.  The Interim Head of Planning suggested this may have been sent only to people who actually signed in at the appeal hearing, not to everyone present.

There was none.