Agenda and minutes

Councillors Sudbury and Fletcher.

13/01215/FUL Castle Farm, Ashley Road

Cllr Stennett – personal but not prejudicial – is a friend of the neighbour who is speaking at committee

13/01216/COU 1A Everest Road

Cllr Coleman – personal and prejudicial – lives in Everest Road; knows many of the neighbours who have submitted representations; wife has recently started a business which provides services to nurseries (not yet on register of interests) – will leave the Chamber during this debate.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd August 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

MJC introduced the application, telling Members that it was at committee at Cllr Sudbury’s request, due to concerns about the suitability of this site for housing, and the relationship of the proposed flats to neighbouring properties.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

BD:  asked about the building which seems to have sprung up on the site – Members saw this on Planning View – and asked whether it would be removed.  Also wanted to hear what would be happening about the trees on the site.

MJC, in response:

-          said the building seen on the site visit is apparently the bin store for the proposed flats, though was surprised to see it and did not know why it had been built as there has been no planning application for it.  Officers will investigate.

CChavasse, in response:

-          told Members that when the application first came in, the trees officer had looked at it and noticed there were trees at the end of the garden which would screen the proposed development nicely.  However, if the development goes ahead as planned, the trees could become a nuisance and there could be a high hedge issue with the owner required to remove them.  Trees officers have thought about TPO-ing the trees, but as they do not contribute to amenity, this would be thin ice in an appeal situation.  Had therefore gone back to the developer and re-configured the plans to make it more acceptable for adjacent properties, with reduced shade on the main living area, and leaf guards on the guttering to ensure that needle drop isn’t a problem.  Considers that the trees and the development can co-exist quite nicely.

GB:  remains concerned about the possible impact that the new building might have on the rooting system of the trees.  These are important trees – the only green in the EagleTower complex – and it is essential that their integrity is maintained.  Not convinced that this development is altogether suitable, but realises that it is a brownfield site and that housing is needed. 

PT:  is puzzled by the lay-out – the proposal is for five units yet there appear to be six. 

RG:  in addition to a policy against garden grabbing, thinks that there should be one against car park grabbing.  Realises the proposal will add to the housing stock, but is worried that this is a commercial site, and the residents of the Edwardian house are used to peace and quiet, and no traffic movements – which won’t be the case with this scheme.  Is also concerned that space in the EagleTower car park will also be constrained – knows he will be told that this isn’t a policy matter, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

MJC introduced the application, which was at committee at the request of Councillor Prince.  Although no planning reason was put forward for this request, it is understood that Cllr Prince has concerns about the future use of the building, and neighbours have several concerns about the proposal.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

RG:  as a point of procedure, proposed that one of the issues the review group should consider is that the councillor who brings an application to committee should be present at the meeting. Cllr Prince and Cllr Sudbury have both asked for applications to be considered by committee today, but neither of them were present.

CC:  said this is something for the working group to discuss, but told Members that Cllr Sudbury is absent for good reason.

BD:  would only put up her hand for this if it is written in black and white and underlined that this ancillary accommodation won’t become a separate house.

MJC, in response:

-          it is made quite clear in the report that the accommodation will be ancillary, and is tied back to No 26 Albert Road in Condition 3.  Any deviation from this will require a further planning application in its own right.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

LW told Members that this application is for a 2m extension to the existing extension, on a GII-listed building in the conservation area on The Park.  Chalfont House is the largest villa on The Park still in single use, and this application is at committee at the request of RG who wanted Members to consider the proposal if the officer recommendation was to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Blanchfield, applicant, in support

Said her family is fortunate to live at Chalfont House, and passionate about preserving its character and historical importance.  Since 2008, they have carried out sensitive restorative works, in consultation with special advisers, local historian and extensive research, including repair and restoration of 42 windows and many original features – this was an enormous financial commitment, requiring the family to live elsewhere for a full year while the work was carried out, reflecting their dedication to preserving the historical integrity of their home.  Told Members that Grade II-listed buildings do not lend themselves to modern family living, require much on-going maintenance and huge running costs, which is why so many similar houses have been subdivided into flats – only four out of 16 villas on The Park remain as family homes.  She and her husband cherish Chalfont, have embraced its historic quirkiness and adapted their living arrangements to suit it, but to make it fit for modern family living, have added a glass kitchen to create a heart for the family home with a direct link to and aspect over the garden – said this was constructed in good faith, but as she was living off-site, said it wasn’t her remit to visit the site and check the measurements, adding that she is intelligent enough to not knowingly run the risk of having to pull down an expensive extension. 

The extension is carefully designed and executed, and was short-listed for a civic award.  Noted that the submission suggests the kitchen has a ply membrane roof but in fact has a copper roof of the highest quality – is disappointed that for all the fuss that surrounds the application, no one bothered to check on site.  Having lived with the kitchen for four years, said that due to its size, it fails on every level to function as a family room, where she can oversee her two boys doing their homework or sit with their grandparents and watch them play in the garden – to all intents and purposes, the kitchen of this five-bedroomed family house serves only as an access point to the garden.  Is only asking to bring the kitchen extension in line with the structures on the other side of the house, and sees no other means of improving the shortcomings of the existing building.  Said it would be in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

LW informed Members that this proposal is for an alternative kitchen extension, adding 2m in length plus a further 1.5m x 5.5m to the side, from the back of the extension towards the house.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Blanchfield, applicant, in support

Thanked Members for listening to her earlier comments, and said she was grateful that her previous application had been permitted.

Member debate:

RG:  is the refusal reason based on the previous application or is additional weight given to this application because extends into the garden and is wider than the previous application.  Do officers consider greater harm is done by this application?

PT:  is confused.  Asked for confirmation - this application extends into the garden like the previous one, but has an additional area to the side and roof extensions?

LW, in response:

-          confirmed that this application is the same depth as the previous application – 2 metres – but this one is wider;  officers consider it does more harm to the listed building, being 7m wide.

KS, in response:

-          the extension was originally negotiated to sit within the width of the existing house’s projecting section.  Officers consider that this proposal to extend that width will be harmful as it will obscure the parent building and have a visual impact on it.

MS:  disagrees.  Having been on planning view, considers the extension to be subservient to the building, not trying to link on but providing a modern extension to a beautifully preserved building.  Officers say it will damage the view of the house, but who will see it?  To be pedantic, future residents could remove it should they wish.  It would be churlish to demand that, but the family should get the application that they need.  Moved to permit – let the family have the building to invest their money in.

GB:  to be consistent, agrees with officers, seeing this as an incremental encroachment on the back of the house.  Imagines a future application may be made to link the wings with a massive conservatory.  Realises he is in a minority, but in view of the previous permission not being adhered to, asks for proper enforcement to make sure that any further permissions are built to plan.

BF:  in view of the background of these applications, hopes this will be built to the drawings and that Building Control will ensure that it is what it is.

RG:  to confirm:  is the extension to be all glass on three sides?  Going back to KS’s point regarding the width of the building, can live with it being glass on all three sides, but not quite so sure if the ends are enclosed, like the villas at the University.

LW, in response:

-          the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

MJC introduced the application for retrospective planning permission, recommended for approval, at committee further to an objection by the parish council.  The development was undertaken with a Certificate for Lawful Development, issued in March; it subsequently became clear that this had been issued in error due to discrepancies in the submitted plan regarding ridge height.  Although work is almost complete, the parish council objects that this has been done without proper planning permission, and the Chair and Vice-Chair consider a committee decision to be the correct procedure.

Public Speaking:

Mr Long, neighbour

There are lessons to be learnt from the revitalisation of Castle Farm, even though the end result should be a well-built modern family home.   Said that after work had started, amendments were made to the original plans, removing three windows from the bedroom above the garage which would otherwise have looked into the neighbour’s kitchen and garden.  However, the road to this stage had been rocky and could have been smoother if more timely information had been promulgated and due process applied.  Said the developer failed to make contact with neighbours about his intentions; by which time Castle Farm was 60% demolished and the roof removed, Mr Long asked the planning office why immediate neighbours had not been notified – and was told that the work was permitted development and there was therefore no requirement to inform neighbours.  Having noted an increase in the roof height, spoke to the compliance officer, who suggested Mr Long meet with the planning officer.  No meeting was offered, and Mr Long was subsequently telephoned by a member of staff to say that the developer had been invited to apply for retrospective planning permission which would probably be granted in order to tidy the matter up.  

Notes and fully supports the CBC statement that in accordance with the requirements of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 and the provisions of the NPPF, the Local Planning Authority adopts a positive and proactive approach to dealing with planning applications and where possible, will seek solutions to any problems that arise when dealing with a planning application with the aim of fostering the  delivery of sustainable development.  However, suggests that the committee make a recommendation that although not a legal requirement, neighbours should be notified of permitted development applications, and be given written advice.  Said this would expedite the dissemination of information and perhaps alleviate problems before they need solutions.

Member debate:

RG:  with reference to the drawings, commented that the proposed drawings look so much nicer, with the roof shaded in and the trees behind, than the existing drawings with no shading or trees.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

0 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

Councillor Coleman expressed a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, and therefore left the chamber.  Councillor Hall took the chair for this application only.

CS told Members that this is an application for a change of use from a residential dwelling to a nursery, and was at committee at the request of Councillor Hall and Councillor Sudbury, due to neighbour concerns about highway safety and loss of neighbouring amenity.  The recommendation is to approve, with a number of conditions attached covering these concerns.

Public Speaking:

Mr Sam Ashimzai, applicant, in support

Told Members that Cheltenham does not currently have a Montessori-led nursery, there are long waiting lists for nursery places in Cheltenham, and a national push to open more quality nurseries.  To help minimise congestion, a driveway in front of the property will be created to allow an in-out drive-through for parents, along with a 45-minute window to drop off their children.  Concerns over cars parking illegally to use the shop on the corner can be monitored by nursery staff, who may be able to help reduce the problem.  It is also anticipated the some parents with walk, cycle or use public transport.  With opening times from 8.45am-2.00pm, has noted that these times, especially 2.00pm, are very quiet on the roads, and with the additional driveway, anticipates very little disruption to local residents. Said the nursery will have no more that 16 children per day, and according to OFSTED, the space provided will be more than adequate.  The applicants will limit the number of children outside at any time to minimise noise, and will also ensure that staff monitor noise levels outside.  They aim to create a calm environment where children aged 2-5 learn to do things and think for themselves, and concentration for long periods of time is part of the Montessori approach.  This type of nursery is known for being calm and quiet, which will help with keeping noise levels to a minimum.  Said Cheltenham will benefit from a calm, caring, safe nursery, is happy to comply with the suggested conditions to keep disruption to a minimum, and hopes that in time, the nursery will be a positive additional to the Leckhampton community.

Councillor Smith, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Was present at meeting the voice concerns of neighbours, as follows:

(1)      lack of clarity in the paperwork – the application form refers to there being one bedroom, but there is nothing on the drawings to show where;

(2)      the application states that midday meals will be provided but there is no identified food preparation area; ventilation may be required which could affect neighbours’ amenity;

(3)      the sketches are misleading – the garage is shown as flush with the front of the bungalow whereas in fact it is set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Councillor Garnham left the meeting before the start of this debate.

MJC confirmed that this is an application for a new dwelling adjacent to 12 Acacia Close, and is at planning committee as a result of the parish council objection.  Members visited the site, and the officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr P Townsend, applicant, in support

Told Members that he has tried to go about things in a professional manner from the start of the project, and listened to all advice given to ensure that everyone is happy.  If the application is permitted, all works will be carried out as sympathetically as possible to all concerned.

Member debate:

MS:  noted that a previous application in 2012 had been withdrawn, and asked why this was.  Thinks it looks very similar to the current application, and if it was withdrawn because the recommendation was to refuse, wonders what has changed now.

MJC, in response:

-          has revisited the history of this application, and notes that the previous scheme was for a larger property, and was withdrawn because it was to be recommended for refusal as too large and having too great an impact on the neighbours at Lime Close.  The current proposal is smaller, hence the different recommendation;

-          Members did not visit the site at the time of the previous application as the application was withdrawn before planning view took place;

-          now, with a smaller footprint and reduced height, officers have come to a different conclusion and their recommendation is to permit.

PT:  asked how Members can possibly approve something so undersized which doesn’t meet the space standards governed by the Housing Act 2004.  The room size is not suitable and should be corrected by officers.

GB:  has to say from looking at the plan that this appears a very cramped site, and the proposal looks more like a double garage extension than a house.  Stumbled through the site on planning view and considers there not to be a large amount of space to build a new property in the context of other buildings.  It does not fit in and is inappropriate - can’t think of any planning reasons to refuse, other than safe and sustainable living, but is not comfortable with the proposal as it stands. 

PJ:  asked the officers for clarity – the parish council states that there is no parking provision but the highways officer refers to two parking spaces – which is correct?

LG:  notes that this proposal is smaller than the previous one, and that the applicants have deliberately chosen this particular position in the site rather than further back towards Lime Close.  Has looked very carefully and, taking into account other permissions in the Prestbury area, can see no reason why a planning inspector would turn this down  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Officer Chris Chavasse, being the applicant, left the chamber for this item

LW explained that this application for new railings in a sandstone plinth at an end-of-terrace property is at committee purely because the applicant is a member of built environment staff.  This is a procedural issue, and officers have no issues or concerns with the scheme.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

There was none.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

This item is minuted in the order it appears on the agenda, but was discussed at the meeting before the applications were considered.

Agenda Item 6

Report on Review of Planning Code of Conduct

Councillor Coleman informed Members that a report under Agenda Item 6 would be considered at this point of the meeting rather than the end, and asked the report’s author, Mike Redman, to introduce it.

Mike Redman began by apologising to Members that the report refers to the existing Code of Conduct as being attached when it is not, but suggested that Members should have this close to hand in any case, and it is available on the CBC website, in Part 5 of the Constitution.  Said this matter is a procedural item, arising out of discussions with Members over the last year or so regarding the constitution of the Planning Committee and changes brought about by the Localism Act and NPPF.  Scrutiny Group wants to look at reviewing the protocol – it has not been reviewed since 2006 - and want three volunteers to sit on the review group.

After some discussion, it was agreed that Councillors Garnham, Thornton and Coleman would be put forward (Councillor Jeffries had also volunteered).  MR confirmed that the review group would be led by OneLegal and planning officers, and time-commitment will not be too onerous – looking at national guidance, best practice and exemplar committees.