Agenda and draft minutes

No apologies were received. The Chair welcomed the new members to planning committee and thanked Councillor Baker as previous Chair of the committee and wished him luck in his year as Mayor.

Councillor Bamford was not present at the start of the meeting.

In relation to the first application, 456 High Street, the Chair read out a statement on behalf of the committee members who were present at the meeting 21st March. The application was not determined in March and whilst  he and some other members of the committee were present this did not prevent them from taking part at the tonight’s meeting in respect of that item. He confirmed that members have not predetermined the matter and hold no bias concerning the application. He confirmed that they are committed to evaluating the application based on its merits and considering all the information presented before the committee.

Councillor Foster declared a bias against Oakley Farm application as previously signed a petition against the development and will leave the chamber when it is discussed.

Councillor Clark declared that she has a friend that lives at Honeyborne Gate and will leave the chamber when 456 High Street is discussed.

The legal officer clarified that Councillors Clark’s interest was a non pecuniary disclosable interest, as close associate.

Councillor Bamford had no declarations of interest.

Councillor Wheeler visited 456 High Street.

Councillor Andrews visited 456 High Street, Imperial Gardens and 320 Swindon Road.

Councillor Oliver visited 456 High Street and Honeyborne Gate on previous planning view.

Councillor Bamford had visited Swindon Road after planning view. He had visited St Peters, 456 High Street and Oakley Farm as part of previous planning view.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th April 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2024 were approved as an accurate record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

Councillor Clark left the chamber.

The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance introduced the report as published and explained that the reasons for the return of the application were in the report and that following legal advice no decision was formally made at March meeting and is back at committee for debate, reassessment and a formal decision.

There were three public speakers on the item; the objector, the agent on behalf of the applicant and two ward members.

The public speaker in objection addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       These words are on behalf of residents of Honeybourne Gate. The application was refused in March and is back before the committee on a legal technicality.

-       Honeybourne Gate is exclusively occupied by older people, many that have limited mobility and spend most or all of their time in their apartments. Whilst residents are aware that there is no right to a view, the loss of amenity that will arise from being faced with a prison like four storey wall will be significant.

-       The proposed development will come right up to the edge of the pathway which is narrow at this point and the development is immediately adjacent to the bridge.

-       The professional advice regarding highway safety was disputed, since those that live at Honeybourne Gate witness near accidents every day on this stretch of High Street.

-       Highway and pedestrian safety will be compromised by this development as vehicles already pull onto the pathway when moving out of the way of oncoming emergency vehicles, there will be nowhere for pedestrians to move without the current loading bay. Additionally, delivery drivers park illegally on double yellow lines outside the front of the development so the hazard is even greater.

-       The residents accept the need for additional housing in Cheltenham and a much reduced development on this site would be acceptable. A development of this size into such a restricted site will significantly damage the street scene undoing much progress already made in the area.

The agent on behalf of the applicant then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The application is not back at committee to ratify the previous resolution rather a fresh consideration of the merits of the application.

-       The application involves redevelopment of a tired and redundant brownfield site at a location actively promoted for growth by the Council.

-       The government and this council support the needs to meet the need for housing identified through JCS area through the redevelopment of brownfield land and sustainable town centre location.

-       This committee has presided over many applications along the High Street and redevelopment of former commercial sites to provide much needed housing and which have been permitted. The site opposite was recently developed with a four storey high apartment block and this application has been designed to follow the scale of that building and is it not as high as Honeybourne Gate.

-       This application has been through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

Planning application documents

Councillor Oliver left the chamber and took no further part in the meeting.

Councillor Clark returned to the chamber.

Councillor Bamford was in attendance for item 6b.

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There was one public speaker on the item, the applicant in support of the application.

Helen Mole, Head of Place Marketing and Inward Investment addressed the  committee as the applicant and made the following points:

-       The ice rink was given planning permission to operate over three years as long as generators were not used after year one. When the application was originally submitted it was anticipated that a fixed power supply would be in place by year two. This has not been possible for reasons as set out in the application and why it is necessary to vary the condition.

-       When the initial condition was set it was based on diesel generators being used. What was achieved in 2023 was a significant improvement and has been declared industry leading for events of this nature.

-       CBC had worked with a local company which provided a high capacity battery which when backed up the existing on site power provision meant that a generator was only required for between one and four hours per day. This was a huge reduction from the 2021 ice rink.

-       The power provision for the ice rink was quiet, it only used 12.7% of the fuel that was used in 2021 and it generated 98.7% lower fuel emissions.

-       She had worked closely with the climate change team at the council to ensure that the monitoring and measurement of the fuel consumption and emissions were carried out in line with established methodology and that the figures quoted have been verified.

-       The ice rink only used sustainably sourced HVO instead of diesel and were stringent that the fuel was sourced ethically and sustainably which was verified through two schemes. Assurances had been received that the fuel only came from waste feed stocks and every fuel delivery received had a certificate to confirm this.

-       The event manager had worked closely with residents and businesses that were likely to be impacted by any noise. No complaints received relating to noise. High spec noise reduction equipment which was over and above what was required by the noise assessment.

-       The event formed an important part of Cheltenham Christmas offer to residents and visitors. According to the economic impact report visitor to the ice rink spent an estimated £1.6m in Cheltenham during the ice rink period of which £868k was additional. It represents a return on investment of around £11 per £1 invested by the council. For 83% of visitors to the ice rink it was their main reason for visiting Cheltenham. The economic impact of the 2023 ice rink was independently assessed by a professional agency with significant experience in tourism and events. They were selected following a procurement process and were instructed to provide an independent and unbiased assessment. Their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There was one public speaker on the item, the ward member.

Councillor Willingham as ward member was asked to address the committee  and made the following points:

-       The bringing forward of the sports hub is important to help with the regeneration of that part of St Peters and the Moors. This is an area which is recognised by central government through the big local that has multiple deprivation.

-       It is important for the community not just as a focal point for football but for other activities.

-       The recommendation is to permit and is hopeful that the committee will do that.

-       The officer report is still referring to incorrect legislation relating to the public sector equality duty. The legislation is the Equality Act 2010 not Equalities Act 2010.

There were no Member questions or debate.

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

For: Unanimous

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There was one public speaker on the item, the agent on behalf of the applicant.

The agent of behalf of the applicant then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The proposed development has been in the pipeline for a number of years, having originally obtained consent in November 2021.

-       The scheme was developed through extensive community and officer engagement and received unanimous support from the committee at that time.

-       Since obtaining planning permission in 2021, Cheltenham Borough Homes has successfully implemented planning permission which means it can be completed at any time.

-       Unfortunately, due to significant increases in build costs in the past three years it has become clear that the development as approved has significant viability challenges. The design team have optimised build costs without undermining its quality. The scheme details have been reviewed and identified all opportunities for scheme optimisation have been explored.

-       The changes proposed are relatively minor but cumulatively make a significant impact on anticipated build costs of the development. The proposed changes include - small amendments to the brickwork detailing, admitting bin stores to the rear of the houses, removing rear planters, placing block paving with tarmac in areas away from the public realm, reducing window sizes and amending the design of balconies to the proposed apartments.

-       The proposed changes have been worked through with the planning officers to ensure they do not contradict relevant policies or have impacts deemed unacceptable.

-       The scheme remains focused on achieving high levels of sustainability and the energy strategy for the development remains unchanged. The renewable energy strategy for the site includes a mix of air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps and solar panels to reduce the carbon footprint of the development.

-       The proposed development is on a vacant plot in a reasonably prominent site on the junction of Swindon Road it is critical that this is developed to provide high quality affordable housing.

The matter then went to Member questions, the responses were as follows:

-       A landscaping plan for the development had already been agreed and will include trees and planting.

-       From a planning perspective there is not a minimum standard area for a balcony or to even provide one as there is an outside space. The balconies will still provide some amenity to the residents that will have them. There are some regrettable losses although not to the extent that the scheme would be unacceptable.

-       There is significant cost associated with a green or sedum roof due to the planting system required. There will still be a roof on the bike storage as policy requires it to be covered and secure; it will not have green or sedum on top of it.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

-       Disappointment was expressed to not have the original application. However, a sustainable development was better than none  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6d

Planning application documents

Councillor Foster left the chamber.

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were three public speakers on this item, the agent on behalf of the applicant and two ward members.

The agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Addressing the committee on behalf of the two applicants of the scheme and not the appellants.

-       As set out in the officer report the process undertaken leading to the meeting today has been highly collaborative. The applicants have responded positively and constructively to the recommendations made by planning officers throughout the 15 months pre application and determination period. This Included the requirement for a section 73 application to clarify the wording of a condition on the outline permission.

-       Further evidence was provided to justify the proposed layout and access configuration and explanation was given as to why alternative engineering options that were tested and rejected during the design process are unsuitable.

-       The proposed scheme is the result of thorough iterative design process that has taken place against the terms of an externally funded planning performance agreement between Vistry, Stonewater and the council.

-       The site is unusual in that it lies within the Cotswold national landscape and yet has an acknowledged suburban context provided by existing development which surrounds the site on three sides.

-       In granting outline permission the appeal inspector stated that the character of the site would permanently and fundamentally change becoming more typical of its suburban setting.

-       Key factors informing the original decision and design process that followed include the inspectors finding that the scheme will deliver 250 new homes including 100 affordable dwellings.

-       The highly challenging site topography requires a bespoke design and engineering solution that works harmoniously with the site. The processes described in the committee report demonstrate that these challenges have been addressed comprehensively and successfully.

-       From June 2023 onwards, the design team, planning officers and the highways authority engaged via the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) process in a series of structured monthly meetings that examined all aspects of the proposed design process. The statement of engagement submitted with the application explains the core PPA meetings, associated topic focus and stakeholder meetings that supported the engagement strategy. The engagement tracker that describes the iterative process and provides a summary of actions across 11 topic areas in response to questions, challenges and revisions sought by planning officers. The tracker identifies 160 design iterations undertaken to revise and improve the scheme over the 4 month period to submission.

-       During the pre-application stage, the design team also met with the representatives of the parish council, local residents group and presented formally to the Gloucestershire design review panel and to members of the planning committee. Comments arising out of these meetings helped to inform the design process.

-       Further PPA meeting was held in November following responses from consultees on the application, this identified a minor series of revisions and clarifications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6e

These were noted for information.

There were none.