Agenda and minutes

Councillor Fletcher.

There were none.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd May 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

Public Speaking:

Mr Simon Hoare, on behalf of the applicant, in support

Thanked Members for their vote in support of the previous application, saying that in order to implement it, Travis Perkins needed to secure permission on this application.  Regarding highway safety, said that there were no objections from the county council, and that existing traffic in and out of the site in its current use had been measured against predicted residential use, and shown that there would be 50% fewer traffic movements per day.  Local residents considered houses to be a more conducive use of the site.  The developer had considered whether it was viable to install a roundabout or traffic lights but with only 107 homes and 50% fewer movements, this was not considered necessary.  Regarding the viability of affordable housing, said the success of this scheme was fundamental to the regeneration of the Bonella site, and there was a lot of evidence and peer review demonstrating justification of 15% affordable units on a quid pro quo basis – the site was sustainable and brownfield, would open up the Honeybourne Line, permeable, user-friendly for local residents, and supported by the Civic Society and the Architects’ Panel – a very popular initiative.  Said great care had been taken with the design and boundary treatments in this location, to protect the existing residential amenity, and the proposed development was both attractive and better for Gloucester Road than what it there at the moment.

Member debate:

PJ:  agreed with these comments and said the proposal ticked many boxes in favour of its approval.  Wanted to support the application but had doubts regarding the affordable housing provision. Was concerned about the lack of evidence and information about affordable housing in the Officer report, and with pressure on greenbelt land, and more and more brownfield sites being developed with little or no affordable housing, said there was extreme pressure in town for more affordable housing.

MS:  wholeheartedly supported the application, and considered it very sensible use of this brownfield site and much better than what is there now.  Liked the cottage-style houses, thought these would be excellent homes for people, and had no concern about affordable housing, believing that this needed to be linked to the retention of employment in the Cheltenham vicinity.  Said it was important not to constrain the development by insisting on more affordable housing – this was what the government wanted, and if the proposal was refused on that basis and went to appeal, the Council would lose.

BD:  on the whole agreed with the development but had a few questions.  Referring to Para 6.6.1, said there must be a condition for trees and landscaping to make it a good place for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Public Speaking:

Mr Simon Hoare, on behalf of the applicant, in support

Said this is an important application which commanded strong support at consultation.  Members had visited the site and could see that it is in a poor state of repair and a focal point for anti-social behaviour.  This application presents a golden opportunity to regain a brownfield site and put it to good economic use, and puts Travis Perkins in the unique situation of relocating within the town, with all existing jobs retained.  The company is an important supplier for small and medium-sized businesses as well as the public, and the proposed location is ideal for all its customers.  The investment for the construction and fit-out would be £9m, financed by the sale of the Gloucester Road site, and there were no statutory obligations on this application.   Said the proposal had been strongly supported at pre-app stage, and hoped that Members would accept the recommendation for approval as a first course entrée of the two courses on offer this evening.

Member debate:

RG:  thought Members were doing the right thing by considering this Travis Perkins application first, but was alarmed by the blue update which stated that this proposal wasn’t strictly dependant on the Gloucester Road scheme being approved.  Considered them to be linked and wanted to establish an audit trail, having been in a similar situation before with Kier Construction and needing the weigh one off against the other. 

HM:  agreed that this is an important point and asked the Legal Officer to comment.

CL, in response:

-          confirmed that the application could be considered on its own merits and as a stand-alone scheme, although the Gloucester Road application was dependent upon this one.

MS:  will support the scheme.  Has a slight concern about the fork-lift trucks which operate in the current Travis Perkins yard with loud buzzers at the back.  Asked if a condition could be added to ensure that these are kept as far away as possible from Brook Road and other existing houses, where the noise could be an inconvenience and a nuisance.  Asked Officers if there was any way to mitigate against undue noise.

PT:  asked if Condition 18 could be amended slightly to say that all vehicles should turn right into Brook Road to avoid a lot of cars driving through the residential area as people come to shop at Travis Perkins.  Thought this would mitigate the traffic in the estate, which is busy enough already.  Said that on Planning View, she had been given to understand the Brook Road site would be built before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Public Speaking:

Mr Langdon, neighbour, in objection

Strongly protested about the lack of time for comments on the second amendments to the scheme – was given only five days to consider his response, during which time the planning officer was on holiday.  Also, as the original consultation period ended on 26^th March, the other complainant could not access the website to lodge his objections, which stated that the time limit had expired.  Thought under these circumstances, consideration of this application should have been deferred.  Moving on to the proposed development, thought that in the light of policies BE7 and BE12, the scheme should not be considered.  The applicant requires direct vehicle access to the road at the front, despite having a garage at the rear of his property, and the Officer report did not acknowledge the many residents who do not have the option of using Inkerman Lane.  Said the proposal should be rejected, as by providing a parking space for an individual resident, other residents without their own parking spaces would be deprived of a parking space on the public highway, and prevented from parking on the street as they are entitled to do.

Mr Bacon, applicant, in support

Said he had listened to comments and opinions following his previous applications, and felt that the updated application and design addressed all concerns, being fully supported by Highways, Heritage and Conservation, and Planning Officers.  Regarding highway safety, said St Stephen’s Road already has several properties with driveways – one more would not add to highway safety issues – and with a young son and another baby due, it would be easier to get his family in and out of the car off the highway and away from the traffic.  Said the current frontage of his house was predominantly hardstanding, and had been described by the Appeals Inspector as ‘not particularly attractive’; the new proposal would provide a far more attractive frontage with lawn, a redesigned wall border and substantially more landscaping, and this was supported by the Officers.  Was aware every application should be considered independently, but pointed to numerous examples of dropped kerbs both on St Stephen’s Road and in the vicinity. Said the application was at committee because of its planning history and weight of public opinion against the proposal, but said that the Officer’s report addressed planning issues, and there had been only two responses to the 30 letters sent to neighbours, Echo advert and site notice.  Of the six semi-detached houses on St Stephen’s Road, only one neighbour had objected; two already have dropped kerbs, one has written to support the proposal, and two have expressed verbal support.  Said he and his wife love the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  had no problem with this application, and was surprised to see how well the summer house sits in the garden.  Visited the garden next door on Planning View, and noted that it was screened from the neighbours by trees and shrubs.  The summer house is well down the garden, and it was only due to the narrow constraints of the plot that the proposal was at Committee – if the garden was wider, it would not have been called in.  Thought it had been done very well and that there was no reason to refuse. 

PJ:  fully supported the proposal, and was envious of the applicant’s long garden.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  struggled with this application.  On Planning View, all had been peaceful with delightful little children playing in the garden, but thought that 17 excited, older children would be very noisy.  Didn’t see the whole lower floor of the house, and wondered whether it was big enough to accommodate 17 children.  Noted that there had been no formal complaints about noise levels, commented again on the beautiful setting and that most people were happy to have children there, but thought five more children might be too many in a semi.

RG:  had a memory of a similar application for a nursery which limited the number of children who can play outside at any one time – although this may seem a bit draconian, thought it had been done in the past.

MJC, in response;

-          said the issue of the size of the accommodation for the nursery and number of children was not a planning consideration and was governed by other legislation;  Members needed to consider the impact on amenity and parking issues;

-          regarding noise, said the Environmental Health team had reviewed the issue, and didn’t feel it was necessary to restrict the number of children to 12; in light of the history of no complaints, took the view that an extra five children would be OK;

-          told Members that the applicant had stated that she was happy to restrict the number to 12 children at any one time, with 17 places in total if the Committee would allow.

BF:  noted that nothing was being done to alter the building and yet Members were being asked to make a judgement on the number of children attending the nursery.  Did not feel qualified to make the judgement, even though what Members saw on Planning View looked great.

MS:  thought the proposal would probably work all right, but asked if a time limit of one year could be conditioned, to see if it started going over the top and causing problems.

RG:  would rather do things the other way round, as issues such as term times and birth rates would affect the outcome.  Although it was draconian, suggested a condition allowing only 12 children in the garden at any one time.  The applicant could then ask for this condition to be removed after one year.

SW:  echoed BF’s comments, and thought this proposal had nothing to do with Planning Committee.  Thought it was a matter for Ofsted, and was surprised that they allowed 17 children, but said if social services and Ofsted were happy, there could be no quibble.

PT:  said Ofsted make the final decision, but Planning Committee has to consider the effect on local residents.  Having run a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  hoped that Members would refuse this application.  Recalled the long debate on the last application at this site, and the current proposal had not changed significantly or been discussed with residents.  There is already extant permission at this site, decided purely on the merits of that application, and this one was so similar to the previous refused one, other than it being sunk slightly in the ground, that it seemed as if the applicant was taking the mickey and causing additional anxiety to neighbours.  Asked Members to remember the previous debate.

BF:  said Members had approved the first application, against Officer recommendation, and it had been the originality of the design that swung it, which had been excellent in regard to the shape and size of the plot.  Said the principle that the site could be developed was established, and this design is better than the previous one.  Could not find any planning reason to refuse this proposal.

IRC, in response:

-          said the reason for this application being submitted now was procedural .  The 2012 application had been refused and taken to appeal, but turned away as no Design and Access Statement was provided.  Therefore a further planning application was needed – it was not ‘just for the sake of it’;

-          said the report makes it clear that as far as Officers are concerned, there is already an approved scheme, and although the site is incredibly small, Officers think the current scheme is a better design for this location in Mead Road than the extant permission.

KS:  moved to refuse for the exact same reasons as last time – there was no change with this scheme other than a small drop in the height of the building.

IRC, in response:

-          referred Members to 1.1.3 of the Officer report, which listed the previous refusal reasons.  Said one of the principle reasons had been the reduction of sunlight to the rear of 3 Mead Road, but said this is a difficult one to argue, as although there was undoubtedly some shadowing in the early morning, this was not different from that found in a traditional street on an east-west axis.  Urged Members to look at this in particular;

-          said the object of the application was to progress the matter to appeal, and Officers did not think the current application could justify that.

PT:  asked for confirmation that the applicant wanted a refusal so that he can go to appeal.

IRC, in response:

-          said he wanted approval, or refusal so he can go to appeal, and in order to progress the matter one way or the other, he needs to get a decision.

GB:  said there had been some difficult applications this evening.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Cooper, neighbour, in objection

Began by saying she had not tried to prevent her neighbour from having an extension, despite the fact that it would be a great disadvantage to her.  Was simply asking for a slight alteration in the building materials to mitigate that disadvantage - these alterations would not affect the neighbour, as they would not be visible to her.  Said if the effect of the dark mass of the new building could be lightened with brick-coloured tiles that would merge with the red brick walls of the house and the new side wall coloured to match her own light patio paintwork, this would help considerably.  Said it wasn’t correct to say that she would not see the slate roof when sitting on the patio – the only way one wouldn’t see it was if you was lying on one’s stomach on the floor.  Thought this request should be a very minor matter to the applicant and the Planning Officer, in view of the loss of sunlight on her patio, lounge and hall, together with the feeling of enclosure in such a vital space, which she would suffer.  Had been told that the roof had to be slate because it is in a conservation area and has to be suited to the Victorian building, but did not see how the lower part of the extension – a pleasant modern design with a flat roof – fitted in with the Victorian ideal, adding that this would be visible from most directions.  Could not see why brick-coloured tiles, out of sight to anyone but her, would be a problem.  Had also been professionally advised brick-coloured tiles rather than slate would not reduce the value of the applicant’s house.

Dr Jelly, applicant, in support

Was very keen to maintain good relations with Mrs Cooper and all her neighbours, saying that life too short not to do so.  Appreciates and respects the fact that Mrs Cooper has lived next door for a long time, and had therefore been sure to involve her in the planned development from the start. Had listened to her comments about the impact of the extension on her garden, and taken regard of this, altering the plans accordingly in the hope of avoiding the present conflict.  The planning agent Clint Jones had liaised with the planning department on the overall scheme and its potential impact on the neighbouring garden.  Had been happy to listen to the comments and attempt to reduce the impact, but struggled with the request to substitute the slate tiles for terracotta-coloured ones.  Thought these would look strange and out of keeping, and told Members that the planning officers could not accept this request either.  Said hers was a large property but configured in such a way that the lower ground  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Agenda Item 6

Officer report on enforcement proceedings at Sandford Dene, Lake Street

CL:  said Para 1.4 in the officer report explained why this item was before Planning Committee tonight.  Said Planning Committee has no powers regarding enforcement matters, but the item was on the agenda for their notice, consideration and comments, following their decision regarding the heat pump in January 2012.  Said the power to decide and act on this matter was with Officers, delegated to them by the Council not by Planning Committee, and Officers could not delegate this decision back to Planning Committee, only seek their Members’ opinion.

BD:  remembered this application from Planning View, and thought that if the planning authority makes rules, it should stick by them, and if the applicant had done something wrong, it should be removed.  Otherwise, the applicant appeared to thumb his nose at the Council.  Thought the planners should stand up and be counted, not make decisions under the fear of costs – this was wrong.

BF:  had read the report.  Noted that the fence had been put up, the noise had been measured, and the new fence and trees found to deaden the noise.  Had noted the test results at the end of the report and the times that these were taken in the morning – said it all complied with noise regulations.  Said there was a lot of noise in the world, and no-one can live in silence.  Thought it would be wrong to pursue this enforcement case.

MS:  took a different view and supported BD.  On Planning View had thought the heat pump was not acceptable – it was noisy and produced a cold blast of air.  Said it was alien to have this stuck next to a house, especially when it should and could have been installed round the corner.  Thought the enforcement team should try to get it removed.

PJ:  thought the noise was unacceptable.  Said an important condition had been ignored, a subsequent condition had also been ignored, and if these were not enforced, asked what message  this would give to the building community.

HM:  said Mike Redman had been waiting to hear views of Members.

CL, in response:

-          said a vote could be taken on whether or not Members thought enforcement action should be taken.

PT:  asked whether an Inspector would ask for the heat pump to be moved or not.

GB:  asked if Members’ decision was binding or not.

MJC, in response:

-          confirmed that Members’ decision would not be binding;

-          said the enforcement action would be the removal of the air source heat pump;

-          MS had mentioned the cold blast of air, but pointed out that there is now a close-boarded fence in place of the old fence, which prevented the cold air from affecting the neighbours – so one part of the refusal reason had been covered;

-          said Officers and Members had had a clear steer from Environmental Health, and if the enforcement action went  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.