Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Hall, Jeffries and Sudbury. 

Councillor Driver declared a personal interest in any item relating to Cheltenham Borough Homes and advised she would leave the room for that item.

There were no public questions.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

The chair asked the Team Leader, Development Management, Martin Chandler, to give members an update on the former Odeon cinema and Haines and Strange sites discussed at the last meeting.

The Team Leader confirmed that since the last meeting there had been further discussions with the applicant on the design of both schemes. Officers had been pleased with the outcomes and planning permissions had since been granted. English Heritage had made similar comments to the council's conservation officers and subsequent negotiations with the developers had gone well and officers were pleased with the improvements that had been made.

The chair announced his intention to take application 5n) before 5i) for the benefit of a number of members of the public in attendance for this item.

Regarding 5a) he referred members to the update from the crime prevention officer which had been circulated to members earlier that day via e-mail. It was noted that members should be given a copy and time to read it before this item was dealt and it would therefore be deferred until 5b) and 5c) had been taken.

The Senior Planning Officer, Emma Pickernell, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the outline application for residential development including means of access (indicative layout of 85 dwellings) at the former Christ College site. Officers considered the principle of proposal and the access were acceptable and therefore the officer recommendation was to approve it. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Kevin Hunt, applicant’s planning consultant, in support

Mr Hunt explained that the application proposed redevelopment of the former Christ College School site following the relocation of the school to the All Saints Academy.  The construction of the Academy was funded, in part, by the Clifton Diocese as the owners of the Christ College site.  As such there had always been a recognition that following the completion of the All Saints Academy, the Christ College land would be brought forward for residential development.

In his opinion, the redevelopment of the site would have a direct and positive impact on the delivery of new homes in Cheltenham.  In turn this would help to reduce pressure on the five-year housing land supply by providing a range of family homes in a sustainable urban location on previously developed land.

In respect of highways matters, the county highways officers had advised that the scheme provided a safe access onto the public highway and that there were no residential amenity concerns.  Highways officers had also confirmed that there were no highway safety grounds on which to refuse this application.

In respect of the layout proposed he stressed that it was indicative in nature and simply demonstrated that the number of houses could be delivered in a safe and sustainable manner.  It would be for subsequent Reserved Matters applications to define the layout and design of individual buildings and he was sure that officers would deal comprehensively with the design to provide a high-quality scheme based on the principles agreed in this Outline application.

He highlighted that this application would secure the retention of the Sports Hall. His client had entered into an agreement with the YMCA who would manage the sports hall and make it available to the public, a significant advantage arising from this application.  The application also included provision for on-site open space including a children's play area and a comprehensive network of paths which would integrate the site into the surrounding community. The scheme offered full education, library and open space contribution in line with the requirements. In respect of affordable housing, they had undertaken a Viability Analysis, which had been independently verified by the Valuation Office, and which confirmed that the scheme would not be viable if a 40% affordable housing provision was applied.  However they had entered into a collaborative process with officers and had agreed to the provision of 20% affordable housing which meant that the scheme would be viable and therefore would be developed to help meet both local market and affordable housing needs.

The officer's report had confirmed that the scheme was fully policy compliant in all other respects including residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Councillor Driver left the room for this item having declared an interest.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Payne, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the construction of 56 residential units including 24 affordable units and associated works. The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers.

Member debate

Councillor Fletcher supported the application but was concerned that there seemed to be lots of loose ends which needed tidying up including a number of highways issues. She questioned why these have not been resolved before coming to committee.

Councillor Walker applauded the work done by the council and Cheltenham Borough Homes on the St Pauls development to date. He supported this application but echoed the comments of Councillor Fletcher.

In response the Planning Officer acknowledged that there were lots of conditions prior to occupation but she would expect all these to be resolved. Asked for his comments, the highways officer advised that it was common to have pre-commencement conditions as these all needed time to be resolved.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support - unanimous

PERMIT

The Planning Officer, Chloe Smart, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the erection of a single new dwelling to the rear of the existing building facing Lansdown Place Lane. The application had been brought to Planning Committee due to concerns from Councillor Driver. The Planning Officer highlighted the fact that this was a revised scheme following the dismissal of the application in 2010. The design had subsequently been significantly amended but there remained an objection from the Heritage and Conservation officer. Planning Officers had however considered the proposal to be acceptable on balance and therefore the officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to a number of conditions.

Public speaking:

Mr Simon Firkins, applicant’s adviser, in support

Mr Firkins explained that the application in 2010 proposed a traditional coach house design.  The principle of a new dwelling was accepted, as was parking, although the Inspector dismissed the appeal on design grounds and for overlooking between the coach house and an apartment within 13 Lansdown Place.  He explained that the issue of overlooking had been addressed by having both bedrooms to the front facing Lansdown Place Lane, with the only window in the rear elevation at first floor serving a bathroom.  As such no overlooking would occur.  A site section also showed that there was no loss of light to apartments in no. 13.

Mr Firkins reported that in terms of design, the building was overtly contemporary, similar to many other coach houses that have been constructed to the rear of listed buildings in the conservation area –examples of some those had been provided in a short letter earlier this week.  Whilst each proposal was to be judged on its merits, they felt these were useful to show similar successful situations.  Two rounds of revisions had been submitted in line with officer’s requests.  These were detailed in the report, with the main changes being: repositioning the dwelling to line up with the rear wing of no. 13; altering the fenestration and detailing to provide a vertical emphasis; the change of material from render to brick.

Mr Firkins explained that following English Heritage’s comments the previous day, the boundary wall had been moved so it is an extra 1.7 metres away from No. 13.  This further minimised any impact on the setting of the listed building.

Mr Firkins explained that as members would have seen on planning view, there were a number of 2 storey brick buildings on both sides of Lansdown Place Lane to the rear of Lansdown Place and Lansdown Crescent.  Some had pitched roofs; others had flat roofs with parapets like this scheme.  In this context the proposal would not be out of place.  It would not have an adverse impact on the listed terrace or on this part of the Conservation Area.  The brick colour shown on the plans may be a bit dark due to printing quality, but it would not look like that in reality and he offered to submit samples.

No off street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Team Leader, Martin Chandler, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the continued use of part of an existing barn as accommodation ancillary to residential accommodation of the farmhouse at Middle Colgate Farm. The matter had been brought to this committee for a decision given the involved history at this site. The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal. He referred members to the additional representation which had been circulated to members at the start of the meeting.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Alice Ross, local resident, in objection

Mrs Ross advised the committee that residents continued to object to the retention and use of the unauthorised living accommodation in this agricultural barn.  She reminded members that in 2008 they had refused an application for established use of the whole barn as a dwelling which was upheld at Appeal in 2009. The Inspector had agreed with the committee that the lawful use of the whole barn was agricultural with no permission for residential use. The property should have reverted to being a barn at that point and this would have been the ideal time for the Borough to enforce removal of the unauthorised accommodation. This did not happen. The applicant did not appeal the decision and so must have known and accepted that there was no certificate of lawful use but despite this allowed his part-time worker to move into the accommodation in May 2010.

She suggested that if the application had been presented to members in 2011 they would have been shocked to find that the unauthorised accommodation was in full use, had been added to and that even council tax was being paid in blatant breach of the committee's and the Inspector’s decision. She questioned why in 2013, the officer recommendation was now to approve the application, one of the reasons being that the accommodation will just be for occasional overnight stays or storage. She advised members that this was incorrect and Mr Stanley had confirmed to local residents that it was his worker’s home and he intended the worker to continue living there full-time. She also challenged the statement that as the use has continued for nearly 4 years, it was virtually established. She felt this was misleading and only worked if the occupant had managed not to be found out. As officers would be aware, local residents over the years had been in constant touch with them about this matter. If members were minded to approve the application, on behalf of local residents she requested that the following conditions be placed on the permission:
i. The ancillary dwelling or its plot to remain ancillary and not to be sold independently of the main house

ii. An agricultural occupancy condition to be imposed on the ancillary dwelling as with the main house

She felt the second condition was very important in order to retain the agricultural link as the recommendation to approve seems to them tantamount to rewarding bad behaviour with the prize of an unrestricted AONB residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Planning Officer, Chloe Smart, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the installation of 6No. Air conditioning units on the southwestern wing of the roof. The works were required to serve accommodation and telecoms equipment on the second floor of the building. It had been brought to committee at Councillor Sudbury's request who was concerned about the noise levels. The applicant had submitted a noise survey and Environmental Health had raised no objections. The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers.

Member debate

Councillor Fisher expressed his disappointment that the building had not been replaced as it was a magnificent site in a conservation area.  As the building was full of servers it seemed a waste of the land and he was disappointed that BT could not be convinced to move out of town. However he accepted that these were not reasons to refuse the application.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

The Team Leader, Martin Chandler, introduced the report regarding the proposed new and replacement signage at the crematorium.  The application had been brought to committee for approval as the council was a landowner. The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers.

Member Debate

At the request of a member, the committee were shown pictures of the new signage.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

The chair announced that this item had been deferred.

The Senior Planning Officer, Emma Pickernell, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the demolition of an existing garage at the rear of 16 Cambray Place and the construction of a new four storey dwelling at 28 Rodney Road. She highlighted that the side elevation of the building comprised metal standing seam cladding which curved over to form the roof of the majority of the building. The officer recommendation was to refuse the application due to the impact on the listed building and the size and the design of the building. It was being brought to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury.

Public Speaking :

Mr Patel, applicant.

Mr Patel explained that the site had many years of family history.  The plot occupied by the garage had always been a separate plot as indicated on the 1820 historic map.  He had provided the local authority with a copy of legal documents which confirmed that the plot had been sold and registered as a separate piece of land a number of times.  Rodney Road was mentioned in the Montpellier Character Area Appraisal which stated that the intense parking and loss of boundary treatments had had a negative impact on the street, downgrading the west side and stating that the east side was less attractive.

The Conservation Officer was concerned that the proposal would have a negative impact on the setting of 16 Cambray Place. However there would be a greater distance between the rear elevation of the proposed building and 16 Cambray Place than that of neighbouring properties.  The proximity between the properties north of the site could be seen on the historic map.  From the site visit committee members would be aware that the adjacent building at 26 Rodney Road is closer in proximity to 16 Cambray Place than the proposed building.  Unlike the neighbouring properties neither of the rear wings of 16 Cambray Place  would have any windows that face the proposed building.

Before submitting the application he had discussed the proposal with neighbours and local residents and it had been well received with extremely positive feedback.  Their opinion was that the proposal would be an improvement to the quality and appearance of the road.  There had be no letters of objection. His view that the development would enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area was supported by the Architects Panel and the Civic Society.

The east side of Rodney Road already had a variety of different buildings with a modern four-storey building adjacent to the application site and the most recent addition under construction is also a modern four-storey building.  Both buildings were either adjacent or behind listed buildings.

In his view the site currently had no visual or architectural merit and its redevelopment presents an opportunity to create a new home in a sustainable location making better use of an underutilised site to provide a much-needed additional home to the town.  The building was well designed and imaginative and would integrate well with the street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Councillor Driver was absent for the rest of the meeting having declared an  interest in any issues relating to Cheltenham Borough Homes.

The Senior Planning Officer, Emma Pickernell, introduced the report regarding Ceylon House, Princess Elizabeth Way, Cheltenham. The proposal was for a new external soil stack to replace the existing internal pipes. The matter had been brought to committee since it was a council owned site.  She explained that an identical request was being made for the subsequent 4 applications on the agenda.

As there were no questions or comments from members, the chair moved to a vote and advised that a separate vote would be held on each of the subsequent applications. 

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support unanimous

PERMIT

The proposal was for a new external soil stack to replace the existing internal pipes.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support unanimous

PERMIT

The proposal was for a new external soil stack to replace the existing internal pipes.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support unanimous

PERMIT

The proposal was for a new external soil stack to replace the existing internal pipes.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support unanimous

PERMIT

The proposal was for a new external soil stack to replace the existing internal pipes.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

14 in support unanimous

PERMIT

The Senior Planning Officer, Emma Pickernall, introduced the report regarding the proposal for a single storey rear extension and two-storey side extension including a single storey link to the garage.  The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

Public Speaking:

Dr Julian Richards, neigbour, in objection

Dr Richards said the key determining factors for their objection was the visual impact, impact on neighbouring properties and the impact on parking availability.

Regarding precedents, he did not consider that the earlier conversion of the garage to living accommodation at No.7 was a relevant precedent since the integrated garage was a constitutent element of the original build and there was no change to the front elevation or dimensions of the property.The proposed plans for no.3 represented a new precedent of linking a detached garage to the house, with a flat roof for the linking portion.  This would be an architectural development not in keeping with the existing builds in the close, where all rooflines are of pitched design, and could lead to a number of similar applications. The design and layout also represented a new precedent in terms of its being subservient to the main ridge line and front elevation, in two respects and he went on to give details.  He highlighted a further factual error in paragraph 1.2 of the report which described the existing single storey portion of no.3 as an extension which was in fact part of the original build of the property.

He went on to comment on the size of the proposed development. Whilst individual parts of the plans were described as "modest" by the planning officer, he challenged the view that the original combination of the separate components of the plan can be described as modest, since the plans represented an increase in the footprint of no.3 by a substantial percentage. The position of the property in a prominent position as one enters the close would mean that it would have a high visual impact on the general architecture in the close.  The size and close proximity of the wall to the boundary of the house at no.1, and the angle at which the two neighbouring properties were aligned, would mean that an extended no.3 would have a somewhat squashed in appearance and would structurally affect the street scene. This was something that Woodgate Close and most of its residents do not want to see and the parish council, amongst others, was particularly adamant about this point. It was also worth noting that previous applications for extensions around the close had not generated anything like the level of disquiet in the neighbourhood that has been generated by this application.

He also challenged the judgement that the plans would not have a harmful impact on light at the neighbouring property at no.1, since the readings had been taken in high summer.  The situations in other seasons would be very different, especially as the side extension is only just within the minimum distance of 0.9 m from the boundary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

There was no urgent business.