Agenda and minutes

Councillor Stennett.

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 – will leave the Chamber during this debate.

Cllr Sudbury – personal and prejudicial – wrote a letter of objection prior to September planning committee meeting, which she could not attend.  Will address committee as county councillor for the area, then leave the Chamber during the debate.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th September 2013 be approved and signed as a true record, without corrections

Cllr Coleman left the meeting for this debate; Cllr Hall acted as Chair

CS introduced the application, which was deferred at the September meeting for further detail and further highways comments.  These have now been received.  The officer recommendation remains to permit.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Sudbury, county councillor, in objection

Couldn’t attend the September planning committee, but wrote a letter of objection to this proposal, all of which still stands.  Has sympathy for the applicant and his wish to open a nursery, but thinks this is not the right location for this type of business.  When a school or institution has a particular focus, it will attract people from a wider area, not just the immediate location; this application is for a Montessori nursery, and may be used by parents and children from a wide geographical area, making more traffic movements more likely.  Stands by all her previous objections – this is not the right development for this situation.

Cllr Sudbury then left the meeting for this debate

Mr Sam Hashimzai, applicant, in support

The proposal complies with OFSTED regulations and with legal space requirements of 2.6sq m for a two-year-old and 2.3sq m for a three-year-old – the floor space measures 40sq m.  The outside space is enough for six children at a time, and adequate provision as they will only be at the nursery for five hours - there are some nurseries with no outdoor space at all, and parents can choose whether they feel this provision is adequate.  Children will bring their own packed lunches, and a quiet area will be provided for them to rest or sleep if required – though again, this is unlikely to be required very much during the five-hour day.  This area is within the main room of the building, as it is not good practice to have a separate room.  Members have expressed concern about disposal of nappies; as the children are over two years old and only at nursery for five hours, they shouldn’t generate a lot, but any nappies will be disposed of correctly and kept in a bin in the new garage.  Regarding the tree and hedges, these are to be retained to help with privacy and containing any noise, and the children will be involved in the upkeep of the garden, planting vegetables for example.  The new in-out driveway to the front will alleviate any traffic issues, together with a 45-minutes drop-off window; photos taken at the relevant times show how quiet the road is when parents will be dropping off and picking up.  The nursery will provide a positive start to its children’s education; he and his wife are passionate about it, and have talked about starting a Montessori nursery in Cheltenham for many years –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

MP told Members this is a full application for a four-bedroomed house to the rear of 17 Greenhills Road, originally submitted as an outline application, but with additional information later submitted for consideration.  Access is via a new shared access at the eastern end of the site, and officer recommendation is to permit

Public Speaking:

Dr Jon Mutimer, neighbour, in objection

The proposed development is inappropriate for several reasons and contravenes policy.  Having read the paperwork, attended meetings and read objections from residents, does not consider this to be a sustainable application.  It is a tandem development, which is poor planning according to the SPD, and could set a precedent which would ruin the local character of the area.  It represents poor use of the limited land and amenity space, and developments such as this should make use of irregular-sized plots rather than single tandem development.  The proposed dwelling will not reflect the urban grain of Hayman Close and Charlton Close – Hayman Close is a larger development, but an additional dwelling in a single garden will not enhance the area and is grossly out of character.  Houses in Hayman Close have three bedrooms, but the proposal is for a four-bedroomed house, greater in height, scale and massing than the original house, against the principles of the SPD.  In addition, the orangery at 4 Hayman Close has not been taken into consideration when calculating minimum distance between the proposal and existing dwellings.  Parking provision is inappropriate, with the flat roofed garage setting an ugly precedent, and if more than two cars are parked on site, they may need to reverse up the drive onto Greenhills Road, which is a dangerous and busy road.  To conclude, this is a poor use of the plot and in contravention of local policy, and many other reasons to reject the scheme are outlined in letters from neighbours.

Mr David Jones, agent, in support

Notes the many objections to the scheme, and is surprised and depressed that the previous speaker owns and lives in one of the houses constructed some 6-7 years ago on garden land to the rear of Greenhills Road – if his objections were valid, he would not be living in a house in this location.  To be specific, 17 Greenhills Road is approximately a half-acre plot, and the garden remaining for the existing house will be a sizeable 25m x 17.5m, with the new property taking up just 18% of the plot.  Houses in Hayman Close take up 24-27% of the plot, and in Charlton Close 21-27%, excluding access – so the proposal represents lower density than comparable properties.  Hayman Close was built in the gardens of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

MP introduced the proposal as a full application for planning permission and conservation area consent.  It is an important site in the conservation area, set amongst G2*-listed Regency terraces.  The proposal sets out to demolish all but one of the existing buildings, and replace them with five dwellings.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Driver.

Public Speaking:

Mr Jacob Pot, neighbour, in objection

Realises the site will inevitably be developed, but it is important the design is right.  Said revisions to the scheme deal with original infringements on the amenity of adjacent properties, but not with the overriding objection to the three-storey element, which is also objected to by English Heritage, the Civic Society, Architects Panel and other local residents.  There is no design argument for the extra storey, and the Conservation Officer excuses it because the three-storey areas are set back.  Considers the only benefit of this is an increased site value.  The 2004 approval included a small second floor, but this was in a pitched roof no higher than the existing roofs, and the original 2004 scheme for a part three-storey, flat-roofed, contemporary development was rejected by officers – a lower, traditional scheme was eventually recommended.  At that time, Jeremy Jefferies, the conservation officer, said three storeys was entirely alien to this mews area, Simon Cairns said that a maximum of two storeys would normally be acceptable here, and Grahame Lewis state that there were fundamental issues in terms of design, layout and height.  An application for a two-storey contemporary coach house, opposite the site, was refused two months ago, based on the conservation officer’s advice that Lansdown Place Lane is characterised by small mews houses and modest buildings which complement the grandeur of the principal terraces.  Cannot understand why the conservation officer is recommending approval of the current scheme, as this is inconsistent with advice of her predecessors, current statutory consultees, and her earlier statements – this proposal is not modest.  Members have seem the mews area from the G2* listed terraces, and noted that all the buildings are two storeys high.  The proposal will rise above the pitched roofs like some contemporary ziggurat, totally out of character, in full view, and changing the setting of the listed terraces.  There are no changes since 2004 in the Council’s statutory obligation to preserve or enhance the character and appearance on the conservation area and settings of listed buildings.  The three-storey element of this proposal will not achieve this, will establish a dangerous precedent, and should be omitted or refused.

Mr David Jones, agent,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

MJC introduced this retrospective application to regularise works as built.  Planning permission was obtained for a single storey extension with a platform area, but this had to be built larger than approved because of land levels at the site.  The recommendation is to approve, subject to a condition covering privacy issues.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Stennett.

Public Speaking:

Mrs P Kennard, neighbour, in objection

Lives in the house next door, and understands that the retrospective application has to be considered in its own right.  Told Members it became clear that building work on the original application was going off-plan, and had referred back to the plan and worked hard with the builders to minimise the effect on her property.  Disappointed that planning officers consider a privacy screen to be a solution, as this will be detrimental to her amenity, with loss of outlook from her kitchen – she won’t be overlooked, but neither will she be able to see out.  In the report update of 11^th October, there are two outline solutions, at Paras 1.2 and 1.3 – asked for clarification of this, and how the condition would be enforced.  Also concerned that a future resident of the house could take down the privacy screen.

Mr Tom Banwell, applicant, in support

Has never taken on a project such as this before, and having secured planning permission to extend his property by an additional foot, agreed with the neighbour not to build the full extent of the approved square footage, and stopped the builders while they were digging the footings to appease her concerns about loss of light and view and maintain a good relationship. The raised step at the rear of the house is needed to enable safe access to the garden; obvious practical and health and safety considerations were overlooked in the original step design, and if it was smaller, someone could trip and fall down into the garden or up into the glass doors, which would be more dangerous if items were being carried.  The wider step allows a person space to fall to their knees instead.  The 90cm bi-folding doors require at least 1m depth to enable opening and securing without the need to step down and back up again, and the area isn’t large enough to be used as anything other than a step to reach the garden – there is no room for table and chairs.  Similar permanent raised decks, a large conservatory and a significant raised patio have all been built or approved within the same terrace, and in all cases, side fences have been installed to offer screening and a reasonable level of privacy.  Understands that the neighbour is concerned about overlooking, loss of privacy and increased noise, but even prior to refurbishment, there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

PLEASE NOTE, consideration of this application has been deferred and will not take place at the meeting.

LM told Members that this is an application to fell a Cedar tree in the applicant’s rear garden, subject to a condition to replant replacements to the front of the site.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Lucy Simpson-Daniel, applicant, in support

She and her husband fully appreciate that the removal of a tree is not something to be taken lightly, have given it much consideration and employed a arboriculturalist to write a full report.  The tree is 8m from the house, is overbearing and oppressive, dominates the garden, obscures natural light, and interrupts the view of the hills.  However the primary concern is safety. The tree’s close proximity to the house, structural weakness at the bark junction, susceptibility to branch loss, particularly in winter, and the possibility of branches fracturing and falling are all causes for alarm.  The applicants are facing challenges with building insurance due to the class of risk, and there has been root damage to the drainage system.  The tree has outgrown its context and is a safety risk.  The applicants are committed to replanting three good trees in a part of the garden where they can mature, be viewable from the road and add to the visual amenity of the area.  Was aware of the TPO when they bought the property, and did not automatically seek to fell the tree – sought expert advice before making a decision.  Does not want to strip the area of its assets but to improve it with three new trees.

Member debate:

CC:  drew Members’ attention to the second of the two conditions on Page 144 – the report to be referred to is dated ‘June 2011’ in error.  If the application is permitted, this condition will be amended to reflect the correct date of the report by reference to its site visit date.

SW:  hates to see trees removed and this is a beautiful tree, but as the tree officer has pointed out, it has a serious fault.  Would hate to see the tree fail and cause any injury.  Does not have much sympathy with the loss of light issue, but from a safety point of view, the tree has to go.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 7.45pm.

There were none.