Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Allen, Baker, Clark and Wheeler. Councillors Chelin and Garcia Clamp attended as substitutes.

There were none.

The following Councillors attended sites 6a and 6b during Planning View:

-       Councillor Bamford

-       Councillor Barnes

-       Councillor Foster

-       Councillor Oliver

-       Councillor Williams

Councillor Chelin declared that she had visited the neighbour of site 6b.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2025

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 February were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published. He highlighted that an officer update had been circulated discussing the impact on the Beechwood Special Area of Conservation with an updated recommendation to permit subject to S106 agreement and specified conditions.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector and the applicant.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         Representing the residents of Moor Court Drive, all of whom are in objection to the plans and have contributed to the speech.

·         Developments should provide an overall benefit to the area, with potential public benefits balanced against and outweighing the many detriments recognised by officers. Residents believe that the detriments have been underplayed, and stated benefits are both exaggerated and do not compensate for the negative impact of the development.

·         Moor Court Drive is a quiet, leafy, airy, and attractive residential cul-de-sac. There are no shops, cafes or other hotels nearby to create noise. It is not unusual for the street to be described as a haven. The starting value and amenity of the area for residents is very high.

·         Activities within the Cotswold Grange Hotel have previously been contained within the building or within an enclosed courtyard garden, minimising the impact on local residents. This would be fundamentally changed by the proposed development which would leave the street overlooked by an overbearing glass pavilion and first floor terrace. The construction design and material will provide no sound or visual barriers which, along with increased use, will cause significant noise and indoor light disturbance to residents. It will change the nature of the street from being residential to feeling more commercial, which cannot be mitigated by adding conditions.

·         The whole building sits within a conservation area, characterised by light, airy space around buildings, and it is contrary to the council’s policy to have unacceptable erosion of that space. The proposed development adds the equivalent of a 2-storey house to the street, well beyond the existing build line for the road and infilling to the edge of the property. The design is intrusive, solid and overbearing and will remove the airy feel of the street. The Conservation Officer acknowledges that the proposal is large in relation to the current footprint and that developments in this conservation area are normally set away from existing boundaries. Allowing this development may set a dangerous precedent.

·         The rear extension backs on to a residential street and homes rather than a service road. With the new bedrooms looking into the properties opposite.

·         The suggested public benefits are economic but are not backed up by data or research and appear to be exaggerated. The claim that an increase of four bedrooms would lead to an increase of four permanent full-time staff is questionable and it is not possible for planning conditions to compel the applicant to make these appointments.

·         Further economic benefit for the town would need the additional rooms to bring people to Cheltenham who wouldn’t have stayed otherwise. Cheltenham’s economic strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published. She highlighted that an officer update had been circulated regarding the Environment Agency’s updated flood risk mapping. The outbuilding remains in flood zone 3, flood zone 2 has been extended and the main dwelling on the site now sits within flood zone 2.

There was one public speaker on the item: an objector.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points (a printed copy of his speech and a Three Counties flood risk assessment was provided to each Member):

·         A number of issues with the application had been raised with officers but responses had not been received or the responses received had been unsatisfactory and shown a lack of duty of care.

·         The previous building of a garden house built under permitted development for garden outbuildings should have been subject to full planning.

·         Hatherley Brook was described by the applicant as ‘a stream’ with no history of flooding but another neighbour’s representation had noted flooding within the garden of 103 Shurdington Road recently and footage of the brook showed that at its full it was a ‘raging torrent’.

·         The building would be on flood zone 3 and increase the danger of flooding due to displaced water. Flood resilience measures such as flood protective material had not included in previous building of the garden house.

·         The application was incorrectly submitted with trees shown in the wrong places or missing.

·         If the annex is being built due to the need for additional space for a family member the applicant could have applied to do a loft conversion with the rear extension as was done at 101 Shurdington Road.

·         The Environment Agency requires that developments must consult with planning departments to gain permissions and licences, and permission must be asked if building within 8 meters of a flood defence. This was not followed during the building of the garden house.

·         The proposed tin roof does not reflect the character of the surrounding area, with other properties using clay tiles or concrete interlocking. The roof will look like a factory and increase noise for surrounding properties during heavy rain.

·         The flood risk assessment used is incorrect as the site plan does not show the rear extension correctly, nor the large, raised patio area which adds to water displacement. An enforcement investigation has been requested.

·         Damage to properties has occurred from flooding and been reported to the Environment Agency. A footpath on the Merestones Estate has washed away, and a retaining wall was washed away when South Acre Lodge flooded.

·         The elevations included in the application were incorrect and shown as higher against neighbouring land than reality. Drainage was also not identified, and concern was raised that this could lead to the brook being polluted and foul air invading nearby gardens, affecting health and welfare.

·         The development could be used as a rental property bringing extra vehicles to the property and leading to increased safety risks. The new garden wall would reduce sight lines and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Planning Application Documents

Listed Building Documents

The Conservation Officer introduced the report as published.

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

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted unanimously to permit and grant.

Planning Application Documents

Listed Building Documents

The Conservation Officer introduced the report as published.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

·         These are Cheltenham Borough Homes properties which are now managed by Cheltenham Borough Council.

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

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted unanimously to permit and grant.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.