Agenda and draft minutes

No apologies were received.

Councillor Baker declared that he was pre-determined on item 6c and would leave the meeting for this item after speaking in his capacity as a Ward Councillor.

Councillor Baker declared an independent site visit to 70 Sandy Lane when the application was originally validated to determine whether there were grounds for a committee referral. He confirmed that he had taken legal advice and was not pre-determined on this application.

Councillor Andrews declared an independent visit to 6a and noted that he was familiar with most locations.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 October were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

The principal planning officer introduced the report as published.

The applicant submitted a later representation which was accepted by the Chair and read to the Committee by the Legal officer. The applicant's letter explained they had been priced out of Cheltenham and saw this as an opportunity to return. Their new design would provide better living space than the existing unviable permission. They noted neighbour support and plans to make the home eco-friendly

There were two public speakers on the item: the applicant’s representative and a Ward Member.

The applicant’s representative addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         Refusal was partially recommended on the basis that the previous permission granted in 2022 may still be taken forward. The sheme approved has proved to not be viable financially for the purposes of speculative development. Attempts to market the site on the basis of this permission have received no interest and this permission will expire in 2025. Other permissions granted at Coltham Fields 4 years ago have also not been built due to similar financial pressures.

·         The new scheme proposed is only viable due to this being self-builders who are intending to build a home for their own use. They are investing in the land and building rather than developing for profit. The Council has a duty to meet self-build demand on a 3 year rolling basis.

·         Whilst concern has been raised that the design fills the plot, this is also true of both historic and more recent dwellings on Coltham Fields.

·         The newly submitted application is very different in scale, mass, height and design that the one rejected by the previous inspector. It provides double the parking and more than double the amenity space than the previously permitted design.

·         No objections have been received from statutory consultees.

·         Seven letters of support have been received from those local to the area who have praised the design, the use of a brownfield site and the positive benefits it will bring to the area.

·         The two objections received relate to highways and the loss of privacy but the officer’s report has concluded the proposal does not cause harm in these respects.

Councillor Day as Ward Member addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         The revised National Planning Policy Framework 125 states that: “Planning policies and decisions should… c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused.”

·         The lack of mitigation of impact on the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) should be dealt with as a condition of approval rather than a reason for refusal.

·         Additional reasons for refusal are subjective judgements.

·         The proposal would represent a substantial improvement on the current site which includes a high wall topped with wire and abandoned cars.

·         Coltham Field residents who have responded to the consultation have been overwhelmingly positive, with 15 letters of support and only 2 in objection. Responses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning application documents

The senior planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

In debate, a Member made the point that it would be good to offer privately- owned properties in the same locality an opportunity to have work carried out at the same time for a preferential price.

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

For: 11

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY for permit subject to conditions.

Planning application documents

The senior planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were four public speakers on the item; two objectors, a supporter and a Ward Member.

The objectors addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         On visiting Bicester Padel Club they were horrified by the scale and imposition on the landscape of these very large courts.

·         The council has a stated duty to ensure all developments respect the important views within, into and from the College Character Area. The proposed structures are higher than a two storey house and will have a significant impact of the view over the Cotswold escarpment.

·         In a public meeting the East Glos club said that they will discontinue the pay and play scheme as soon as contractural obligations allow, and operate as a private members club in an affluent area. This will reduce the impact of the benefits claimed for sport participation, health and wellbeing.

·         The public consultation was carried out as a public announcement activity with little opportunity to impact the decisions that had already been made.

·         In a public meeting it was suggested that both East Glos and the Planning Department believed it would be problematic to cover the courts in the centre of the club and in site of the club house. Shifting the covered courts to the perimeter shifts the issues raised to neighbouring properties instead.

·         The technical noise report does not match the lived experience of the club’s neighbours who find that they can’t sit with doors or windows open on a summer evening due to the low frequencies involved. On the 16 November the Financial Times described the “cacophonous wallop” of Padel being played. There have also been significant discussions online about the ineffectiveness of acoustic padels.

·         It is a prime responsibility of Planning that developments do not cause unacceptable harm to adjoining land owners or to living conditions in the locality.

·         The Croquet Club and East Glos Club have occupied their respective sites for over 100 years as amicable neighbours.

·         The proposed structures are 8.5m high and 24m long with no architectural merit and will sit on the boundary of the two clubs, obscuring the view from the Croquet Club towards the Cotswold escarpment.

·         The Cheltenham Local Development Framework (July 2008) and Cheltenham Plan (July 2020) set out the measures that Planning must take into account, when considering planning applications within the Central Conservation Area – and in particular the College Character Area – within which both the East Glos and the Croquet Club reside.  These both emphasise the importance to Cheltenham of preventing erosion of visual amenity within the Conservation Area.  One particular emphasis being on the views out of the area towards the Cotswolds. These are called “Key Views, or Vistas”.  One of these, shown in the 2008 document, is “View of the Cotswold escarpment over Cox’s Meadow with Croquet Club in the foreground”. This is the same view as that currently enjoyed from the Croquet Club’s club house. This view would be obscured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Planning application documents

The senior planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item; the objector and the applicant’s representative.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         They are representing the concerns of 70 Sandy Lane and 1 Hartley Close due to concerns about the disproportionate size of the roofand the adverse impact of the enlarged reoriented balcony.

·         Previous planning applications for the addition of a hipped roof on the property were rejected due to issues with subservience and harm caused to the street scene and character of the area. This led to a contemporary design with a 400mm height increase which was also rejected by the Committee during a retrospective application submitted during construction. These decisions robustly tested and set the acceptable extent of development.

·         The current proposal will add 3.4m to the height of the roof, increasing the dominance and bulk close to the boundary with 70 Sandy Lane.

·         The proposed design will be far larger and more dominant than other properties in the area and will be out of character with its surroundings and in conflict with policy D1.

·         The report states that subservience is no longer a consideration as it deems the proposals to be a replacement dwelling rather than an extension or alteration. However, the footprint, layout and windows remain the same and the application described the proposal as an alteration. This does not meet the requirements of policy H1. Allowing amendments to be considered as new dwellings to avoid policy requirements on subservience risks setting a harmful precedent for future large extensions.

·         The proposed balcony will double in size, projecting outwards and reorienting towards Leckhampton Hill. Unlike the existing Juliet balcony this would provide 10m2 of space to accommodate a table, chairs and a sofa. Enabling the space to be used for socialising will dramatically increase overlooking with direct sightlines into neighbouring gardens. Case law fully supports the principle that if some overlooking exists, reorienting and intensification must be assessed for additional harm. With increased balcony use becoming more frequent, the use of our private patio space will be negatively impacted, which should be protected by policy S1.

·         The report misapplies the window to boundary standards to a balcony, which does not align with established planning principles. Case law establishes that balconies cause greater harm than windows, particularly to private amenity spaces. SPD requires a minimum distance of 21m, with a minimum of 10.5m to boundary.

·         Whilst we oppose the scheme in the current form we believe it is possible to reach a compromise by reducing the scale of the roof and adding screening methods to the balcony. This would alleviate the harm caused to the character of the area, the conflicts with policies D1 and S1, as well as protecting the privacy and enjoyment of neighbouring properties.

The applicant’s representative addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         The property was extended in the recent past by the previous owners. Unfortunately this extension was not well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

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

·         The flagpole will be used to fly the Green Flag awarded to the park.

·         The location of the flag is not on the site previously being used by the NHS to land air ambulances.

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

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to permit.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

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

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to permit.

Planning application documents

The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

In response to a Member’s question,  the officer confirmed that the other two doors at the back of the Town Hall do not require replacement as their condition is acceptable.

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

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve.

For members to note.

These were noted for information.

There were none.