Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Clark.

There were none.

Councillor Fisher declared that he had visited Runnings Road.

Members visited sites as part of Planning View.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on XXX.

Minutes of the meeting held on 16^th November were approved and signed as a true record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the updated report as published with the new recommendation to defer the application.

The planning officer provided the following reason for the application to be deferred:

-       The road gradients did not conform with condition 13 and the consultation response from the highways authority.

The Highways officer provided the following points:

-       Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) objected to the planning application due to road impact on the local road network, including Priors Road, Harp Hill at mini roundabout and Sainsbury traffic lights. The inspector disagreed and considered that the road impact was overstated and not proven.

-       GCC were also concerned about the gradient of the site and gradients of the proposed roads within the site as it doesn’t meet the condition and there is concern whether the site would be acceptable for wheelchair users.

-       The two options for dealing with the gradient are to either lower the top part of the site or increase the lower end of the site or a combination of both. Both options have impacts on the site.

The matter than went to the vote on the new officer recommendation to defer:

Unanimous – deferred.

Planning application documents

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

The following responses were provided to member questions:

-       It is proposed to reuse all existing bricks and stones. The condition is for any new bricks that are needed.

-       The condition to require lime mortar to be used is due to it being an historic wall as this is what would have been used at the time.

-       Trellis work not being replaced is a decision between the landowners. The new wall is acceptable there is no need for an additional trellis as the wall itself is 1.9m. The neighbour could install their own subject to any consent that may be required.

Councillor Andrews declared an interest as a non-executive director of Cheltenham Borough Homes and will abstain from the vote.

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

For: 9

Abstain: 1

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

The following response was provided to a member question:

-       The matter of land ownership is not a material planning consideration. The application is seeking consent for advertisement and doesn’t give consent for someone to put something on land that they don’t control. The committee are only considering if the merits of the application for the advertisement are acceptable.

The legal officer provided the following response:

-       It is the responsibility of the applicant to get the appropriate permission from the land owner to put the sign there. This would be a private matter. The committee can grant consent from a planning perspective if they consider the advertisement appropriate.

The matter than went to the vote on the officer recommendation to grant:

For: 9

Against: 1

Planning Application Documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

Councillor Tooke as Ward Councillor made the following points:

-       Grosvenor house is not a listed building.

-       The proposed changes are to the rear of the building not to the highly visible front of the building.

-       The rear is accessed via a dead end road and also has a bin store it is not really used by the public only residents.

-       There is precedence of the building already as there is double glazing for the patio and juliet balconies.

-       Councillors should be mindful that we are experiencing a cost of living crisis and of the councils objective of achieving net zero as double glazing contributes to this.

-       Changes to the historic buildings can be managed when retrofitting double glazing.

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

-       In 2019 the council declared a climate emergency a subsequent climate emergency action plan document states that the council will help home owners make their homes more energy efficient, the application before you will enable this.

-       The works relate purely to the rear of the building and will be the responsibility of the property management company and not the individual flat owners.

-       The intention is to install all windows and doors at the same time and not flat by flat. Should planning permission be granted it is anticipated that subject to costs and manufacturer timescales the works would commence next year.

-       There are a wide variety of window styles and materials within this part of the conservation area. The new windows will be viewed alongside existing ones with UPVC and aluminium.

Member Debate

In debate, members made the following comments:

-       The disrepair of the building and needs updating and it is the rear of the building which the public will not access.

-       UPVC is now such quality they look as good as the original we have to do as much as we can for a sustainable future.

-       The building was built 20 years ago and see no reason not to grant permission.

-       Lack of insulation in homes is a significant cause to climate change and therefore makes sense to grant permission for double glazing.

The matter then went to vote on officers recommendation to refuse:

Against: Unanimous

The Head of Development, Management, Enforcement and Compliance advised members to impose a condition for a timescale for works so that all windows and doors are installed at the same time.

Members agreed to the condition.

The matter then went to vote on permit:

For: Unanimous

Planning Application Documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

The following responses were provided to member questions:

-       The developer is only acting as planning agent on this application.

-       The only change is from a pitched roof to flat roof.

The legal officer provided the following response:

-       The council cannot impose a condition before a planning breach has been made, the council can only act after a breach has been made.

Member debate

In debate, members made the following points:

-       The applicant is getting more light due to the change but the neighbour is not getting as much light even though it passes the light test.

The Head of Development, Management, Enforcement and Compliance provided the response:

-       Planning fees are set nationally by regulations, the council does not have any authority to raise statutory fees, only discretionary fees for pre applications. The planning fees have recently increased last week for first time in several years. Also any second application from now on requires the applicant to pay the charge again.

The legal officer provided the following advice:

-       The committee is considering this proposal against what is already permitted. With retrospective applications it should still be considered as a fresh application, without reference to the works having already been carried out.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

For: 7

Against: 3

No absentions.

Appeal updates for information.

These were noted for information.

There were none.