Agenda and minutes

Councillors McCloskey, Jeffries and Fletcher.

13/00777/FUL & CAC and 13/00827/OUT & CAC

Cllr Sudbury – personal and prejudicial – has campaigned against the demolition of the Odeon.  Will speak in objection to the proposal then leave the Chamber.

Cllr Barnes – personal – has had non-pecuniary discussions with the applicant regarding the transfer of land to a charity he supports.

Cllrs Garnham & McKinlay – personal – have both represented CBC on the Cheltenham Development Taskforce which is mentioned in the report.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th June 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

CC :  as new Chair, advised Membersthat Officers will give a short introduction to each application, explaining the proposal, why it is at committee, and any other relevant information, to give a clear start and finish to each application, and also for the benefit of members of the public in the public gallery.  This is a trial, and Members’ views will be welcome.  Allowed 10 minutes for Members to read the lengthy update, and advised that although the first two applications were being debated together as a whole, Members would vote on each application separately at the end of the debate.

Public Speaking:

Mr Robert Chitham, applicant’s heritage adviser, in support:

Introduced himself as the architect who had been invited to review the details of the scheme.  Said the neo-classical design is of high quality and well suited to its surroundings.  Noted that this is a Taskforce site, brownfield and derelict, and using it for new homes will help with the town’s housing supply.  Considered there to be two crucial issues, the first being the cinema:  its size and form make it difficult to adapt, and despite six years’ marketing, no-one has come forward to take it on, deterred by the massive cost of repairing and adapting it.  Said it is not a major work by its architect, and is not included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historical interest.  Said the conservation area could be enhanced by buildings such as this, but considered it out of scale and architecturally discordant with the area, and the opportunity to replace it with something more appropriate should not be missed. 

The second issue is the design, which had been examined thoroughly by officers and amended accordingly, including a reduction in the mass of the town houses and realigning them to increase landscaping opportunities in the site.  Said other details need large-scale drawings and are controlled by condition.  Considered the principles of the proposal had not been fully recognised, and there was some confusion over mews-type houses and villas and the need for these to be set in a landscaped context – this was common in London developments of the period but not in Cheltenham.   Said the design critique included generalities which had been taken as rules, such as duality, a style characterised by two mirrored halves, which was common in Cheltenham but could be mitigated to some extent – and in any case was not an issue in a terraced design which was generally viewed obliquely, along the street. 

Regarding shop fronts projecting over the plane of buildings above, said some shops in Cheltenham do this slightly, others do not – there is no rule.  Said the proportions of the terrace had been described as atypical and inelegant, with the suggestion that the design is unworthy, being neither pastiche nor replication.  Agreed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

RG:  had a technical question regarding the dumping of spoilage and debris during construction – would this be transported internally within the site to its new location?

BD:  noted concerns from a constituent regarding noise levels and the positioning of loud-speakers, and asked if anything was going to be done about this.  Was not against the application but thought this matter needed attention.

MS:  as ward councillor for Prestbury, thinks this is a good scheme and fully supports it.  Pleased to have investment in the town from the Jockey Club.   Said there is always going to be some noise when events are taking place, and suggested that the letter referred to by BD was more concerned with other events at the racecourse, such as the Wychwood and Greenbelt festivals.  On race days, tannoy announcements are all part of the excitement, and concern from one neighbour shouldn’t influence this.  Said again that this is a good scheme, and that the Parish Council concerns about the view of the site from different locations are not well founded – in reality, from the top of Cleeve Hill, people will not be aware of any change, and the proposal will provide a good selection of buildings.

BF:  referring the NPPF, was concerned that there will still be a considerable ‘tented village’ at the racecourse – had hoped for more substantial building.  Was also disappointed the parade ring was not in front of the stand, resulting in people being excluded from that part of the proceedings, but realised that this was not a reason to refuse.  Suggested the scheme conflicted with the NPPF’s principle of promoting mixed use and multiple benefits from land – the racecourse is used for everything from a Kiri te Kanawa concert to car boot sales, and would have liked to see something included in the proposal which would make it even more suitable for other uses – adding that the scheme won’t actually make it easier for people to go to the races.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Sheldon, applicant, in support

Told Members that she had spent a considerable amount of time overcoming concerns about the original application, and the current proposal is for a single-storey (rather than two-storey) dwelling which causes no harm to neighbouring amenity, has no highway safety issues, and does not adversely affect the character of the wider area. The proposed dwelling is not at odds with planning policy, is less obvious than the previous proposal, meets requirements of separation distances, is single-storey so does not cause loss of privacy or light to neighbours, and with windows at ground level will not overlook the neighbours – said it is not true to say that there will be overlooking issues, as endorsed by officers.  Said the proposed dwelling sits comfortably in the generous gardens, and its height and design are appropriate.  Agreed that the design is contemporary, but said although this is different, it is not inaccessible – it is a high quality, bold and interesting design which fits well in its context.  Regarding highway issues, said vehicular access will be by an existing access and no highway objection has been raised.  Highways also accept that the increase in traffic would be negligible.  Summed up by saying this is a proposal for a single-storey, high quality, family house close to good schools, and is supported by officers.  Hoped Members would agree.

Mr Clarke, neighbour, in objection

Spoke on behalf of neighbours to emphasise the points made in their many letters of objection.  Was concerned about the impact of the development on the character of the area - it is garden infill and a totally different design to the other dwellings around it.  Realises that houses in the area are of many different styles, but considers the external, futuristic appearance of the proposed dwelling, its 1.5 storey construction, wood panelling and metal roof are completely out of character.  Regarding its impact on neighbouring properties, said at 1.5 storeys, it would overlook other homes.  On the subject of highway safety, said Church Road can’t take any more traffic; this dwelling will exit on to Church Road, and additional cars will be involved.  Asked Members to note that of 26 letters sent out, 15 objections and two comments had been received, none of which were in support.

Member debate:

RG:  on a technical point, asked about the description of the proposal – it states ‘erection of a storey dwelling’.  Should this be single-storey or 1.5 storey?

MJC, in response:

-          apologised for oversight.  Said the proposal is for a single-storey building, but could be termed a ‘generous’ single storey.

RG:  on planning view, had noted the lovely open garden of 113 Church Road which would obviously be lost when built on, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Public Speaking:

Mr Whitbourne, applicant, in support

Thanked Members for the opportunity to address them and explain the reasons for his application.  Said the access to his paddock is by grace and favour of the owners of Capel House, next to Prestbury House, and he has to cross his neighbours’ rear garden to reach his sheep and goats.  This access will soon finish.  The alternative access is via a field he currently rents, which adjoins the paddock and is owned by the Church of England.  When the rental period ends, he will have no access to the paddock or stables, which is why he has applied for access from Mill Street.  Said the original application was for double gates to make entrance with farm implements and delivery of hay and straw much easier; this has been amended to a single gate following objections from the Parish Council and neighbours.  A solid gate was originally requested for security reasons, as a five-bar gate gives easy access to trespass, would allow members of the public to have physical contact with the animals, and would be less suited to keeping the animals in.  Regarding the stone wall, said this is badly in need of repair, and he would undertake to repair the length of the wall concerned, retaining it at its original height.  Said if access permission is denied, he will have no legal access to the land he owns, and asked the committee to approve access permission accordingly.

Member debate:

SW:  had absolute sympathy or the applicant, though might have argued against the application in other situations.  Regarding the request for single access, was in favour of putting this back to double access, as the land in question could end up as scrap land if the owner can’t access it.

PT:  asked to see the design of the gate on the screen.  Thought it was a double access, and was puzzled by the comment that this was needed for deliveries etc – had the lorries been driving over the neighbours’ back garden until now?

BF:  said it was a five-bar gate with a pedestrian gate.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Public Speaking:

Mrs Justine Woodley, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Objected on behalf of Grace Gardens Residents Association, including all residents of Wade Court and GraceGardens, who have been disturbed by activities at the Manor in the past and might be in future.  Was concerned about a number of issues relating to the change of use, although neighbours do not consider this will be any change - weddings and parties have been going on here for a number of years and they have had to deal with noise and disturbance issues regularly as a result.  Said there has been a significant problem with loud noise late at night as guests are leaving, and numerous complaints have been made to the Manor about this.  Thought it unlikely that any constraints would stop this being a problem, but wanted to be sure at the very least that guests will not be allowed to leave via the current main entrance and that no vehicles are allowed into the car park at the front of the Manor at night.  Understood that there might be new doors into the ballroom, and said that if these are open during events, the noise level is likely to be as high as it is when there is external amplified music – this has been a problem in the past.  Also requested sufficient controls over food smells and waste, including the quiet disposal of empty bottles.  Said it is impossible to believe that there would not be further traffic and parking issues, especially on Hatherley Lane, which is already a busy and dangerous road.  Said people regularly park on Wade Court and on Hatherley Lane alongside Wade Court, making it dangerous for residents turning into Hatherley Lane, and increasing the possibility of a serious accident. 

Said local residents have tried to maintain a working relationship with the owners of the Manor in the past, but have found that complaints are not attended to.  Realised the tension between running a wedding business in close proximity to residential buildings, and said that although the new owners have given neighbours a number of assurances, neighbours remain concerned that business imperatives will soon diminish the owners’ concern for their neighbours.  If the application is permitted, neighbours expect there to be comprehensive restrictions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Justine Woodley, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Said local residents believe that these additional structures will greatly increase the noise disturbance they have suffered for a number of years.  Said the first concern is amplified noise, which will be quite unacceptable in any outside area as far as residents are concerned.  Environmental Health officers have said that PA may be used for an hour every day, but told Members that a recent marquee event in the gardens which used amplified noise was so loud that residents could not hear their own televisions inside double-glazed homes with the windows closed.  If amplified noise is allowed, this level of disturbance could occur every day throughout the summer.  Said residents’ second concern is that these areas will be used by smokers and drinker to congregate, so creating additional loud noise.  Up until now, Manor staff have not always been able to control wedding guests to ensure they use designated smoking areas, and the current smoking area is a little further away from Grace Gardens but not far enough to prevent noise disturbance.  Management of smokers remains a serious issue for residents.  The third concern is that EH officers suggest weddings and other events can take place between 8.00am and 9.00pm.  Said 9.00pm is late and could mean music, singing and applause from 150 people well after small children are likely to be in bed.  Finally, said the proposed site of the gazebo is only about 20m from the nearest house, though it could clearly be situated elsewhere in the grounds – there seems to be only minor aesthetic justification for its proposed siting.  It could be positioned on the Hatherley Lane side of the Manor, though noise would still remain an issue for Grace Gardens and Wade Court residents.  Said Manor by the Lake is very close to neighbouring houses and cannot therefore expect to function as a country estate might do in hosting weddings – amenity will be significantly and negatively impacted by the addition of these structures in the grounds. 

Ms Madge, applicant, in support:

Told Members that despite British weather, many couples want to be married outside, and the pavilion and gazebo are important for her business:  the pavilion will be an ideal backdrop for larger ceremonies, the gazebo for small ceremonies.  Said they will be used for the ceremonies and photos only, and will not be used as smoking shelters – there will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

RG:  has consulted the SPD on garden land development and looked at the access, and was surprised that Highways Officers consider three houses in a row on a single access conforms with our policy?

MP, in response:

-          was thrown by reference to ‘our policy’ – the SPD is not part of highways policy in the local plan.

RG:  said according to the SPD, one access serving three houses is not permissible.

MS:  agreed with this statement.

CS, in response:

-          on the point of access, said there is already existing access to serve two dwellings, and the application is indicative of a third dwelling.  It is in accordance with the SPD, and there are no objections from Highways.  Basing each application on its own merits, this proposal is considered acceptable.

LG:  said if this application is granted, it makes nonsense of the £60k spent on the SPD which, on page 36, shows very clearly that two dwellings sharing the same access is not acceptable.  Reminded Members of a costly appeal on a property down the track in the greenbelt – this area is still in the greenbelt and the resident in objection is likely to go to the Local Government Ombudsman if the application is approved.  Said that three dwellings with one access is the worst application for backland development he had seen – there have been several for two, but this application is nonsense and should be thrown out of the window.

CS, in response:

-          regarding access, said the SPD states that tandem development is not normally accepted, but as the access already serves two properties, the question is what additional harm a third dwelling will cause.  Based on the response from Highways, it will cause no additional harm.

MS:  said it would cause harm, and would contravene Policy CP7, compromising the house on the right, and representing over-development of the land.  Moved to refuse on CP7.

SW:  did not normally have much sympathy with the SPD, but considered this to be ridiculous.  Following on from an argument at last month’s committee, was concerned about ‘drip feed’ development, adding houses one by one.  Has sympathy with the SPD in this case.

RG:  noted the words used by the officers and the SPD, that this kind of development would not normally be permitted. Has not always agreed with LG on this, and considers two dwellings are sometimes OK on the principle of the SPD, but thought this application is pushing things too far, and supports MS’s move to refuse.

LG:  told Members that he had contacted the case officer and been told that this application was likely to be refused in accordance with the SPD, only to be informed two days later that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

There were none. 

CC:   thanked officers for their additional work in getting the first two applications to committee this month. 

RG:  thanked CC for successfully chairing the meeting, and welcomed the officer introductions to each application.