Agenda and minutes

Councillors Jeffries and Garnham.

13/00756/FUL Leckhampton Industrial Estate,

CL explained to Members that a fellow Member, Cllr McLain, owns land adjacent to this site, and as they all know him, they may all consider they have what is know as a personal interest in this application. If so, they would each then also need to consider whether they feel they have a close association with Cllr McLain that was so significant that it is likely to prejudice their consideration of this application.

Cllr Driver considered that, as a close friend of Cllr McLain, her interest could be prejudicial as well as personal, and decided to leave the Chamber for this debate accordingly.  All other members, at the Chair’s suggestion, agreed to declare a personal interest in respect of this application.

13/01386/FUL Coronation Flats, Oak Avenue

Cllr Driver – personal and prejudicial – is on the board of Cheltenham Borough Homes and they are connected with the site.

13/01500/CONDIT and 13/01767/ADV Car Park, North Place

Cllr McKinlay – personal – is cabinet member for Built Environment.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th October 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

Introduction

MJC introduced this application, saying it had a lengthy history, and an extant outline planning permission on the site – the site plan shows the area which benefits from that permission, and Members are being asked to consider the north-east third of that area.

Public Speaking:

As two separate individuals wanted to speak in support of this application, they were each allowed 1.5 minutes in which to do so.

Mr Andrew Hulcoop, Cotswold BMW, in support

The site at Tewkesbury Road is no longer acceptable from BMW’s point of view, and it does not make commercial sense to keep two businesses open in Cheltenham, hence the proposal to close the old site.  BMW employs 156 people in Cheltenham and Gloucester, its payroll adding £5m to the local community.  Following relocation, they would expect to grow that headcount significantly, bringing more employment to the town.   BMW prides itself on developing and training young people, with over 20 young trainees and apprentices, and its own training academy.  This proposal will be a huge investment, but is considered worthwhile and right for the local area.

Mr Paul Fong, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Members will all appreciate the full planning merits of the scheme, having read the report.  This is a comprehensive report, and HPPlanning worked hard with Officers to reach their conclusions. Is proud that this internationally-recognised brand wants to make significant investment in Cheltenham – it will be a landmark development based on a quality design, with sustainable facets and providing employment, wealth and prosperity to the local area.  Commends the scheme to Members.

Member debate:

MS:  this is a good scheme.  Commends the applicant for providing an excellent model which makes it so much easier to envisage, and represents the quality of the product sold.

JF:  this proposal is in her patch, and the site has a long history.  Sad that the green belt is to be built on, and would have liked to keep this as a green oasis, but the precedent has been set and there is no going back now.  The design is wonderful and innovative, and she wholly supports it.  Notes a lot of concern about traffic, but Mark Power at Gloucestershire Highways has said it will produce less motorists than an office development.  Grovefield Way can get very congested at peak hours but is free-flowing most of the time, and North Road West is protected.  Councillor Britter has written expressing concerns of residents –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Cllr Driver left the Chamber for the consideration of this item

Introduction

WH described the proposal, which will involve demolition of existing buildings and remedial work round the existing land levels.  A viability assessment has been done, with an affordable housing provision of 10%. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Bastin Bloomfield, local resident, in objection

Introduced himself to Members as a resident of Collum End Rise, a registered architect and a corporate member of RIBA.  Favours and supports appropriate development of the site, but not in its current form.  The Design & Access Statements says levels to the north of the site will be reduced to minimise impact on existing properties - this is not shown on the plans, and although the report notes a reduction on site levels of 2.5m, this occurs in a limited area on the far boundary.  Despite the offer of access, the applicant has never viewed the site from any gardens other than 61 Collum End Rise to asses the impact of level changes, and the garden of 51 Collum End Rise is 2.4m higher than 61.  Members will have noted on Planning View that the existing bank, at 5.2m, is significant before a three-storey building as put on the top.  Key factors from the Garden Land SPG have not been addressed such as impact on neighbours’ amenity due to layout, scale and massing.  Twelve family homes and gardens, currently enjoyed by 43 residents, will be directly impacted by the proposals. They are not suggesting no development and recognise the importance of providing houses, but object to the dominating visual impact and significant loss of sun and daylight and its consequences, due to orientation and level changes.  The proposals are large executive properties on small plots; due to the height difference, this is equivalent to a five-storey house 2m off his garden fence.  More appropriately-sized properties and a better housing mix can ameliorate this detrimental impact.  Asks Members to be happy all material considerations and relevant matters have been taken into account before they make their decision, and not to underestimate the significant loss of light and overbearing visual impact that neighbours will have to live with as a result of their decision. As a professional, can see what this scheme will do and, as a resident, is horrified.

Mr Alex Scott, applicant, in support

Spoke as a representative of the applicant, Martin ScottHomes, and did not want to reiterate what is in the report, but to provide background information.  The applicants are a Cheltenham-based company, twenty years in the property business, and care about the town.  They had a pre-app  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

On return to the Chamber, Councillor Driver declared a personal and prejudicial interest and did not take part in the debate or vote on this application.

Two other Members (Cllr Barnes and Cllr Godwin) were out of the Chamber for this application.

EP explained that this is an application for two new bin stores, at Committee because it is a council-owned site.  The proposal will replace the existing bin store at the back which is located too far from the road.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  was told on Planning View that the bin stores are being relocated because of the distance that refuse collectors have to travel to reach them.  Now the residents will have to travel further with their rubbish – this isn’t fair.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

EP described the application, and said the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Heidi Jockelson, neighbour, in objection

The applicants have shown no regard for the effect on their neighbours during the development of these proposals, which threaten a massive intrusion into their privacy – there has been no acknowledgement of the adverse impact this substantial project will have, hence her strong objection.  The most contentious issue is the virtual doubling in size of the house, and the proposed two-storey structure almost 10m in depth, within 1m of the side boundary of her property – a vast expanse of solid wall which will swamp her home, causing serious loss of light.  This is exacerbated by the difference in ground levels between Downside and Waverley, resulting in a prison-like wall which she and her husband will have to suffer every day.  Trees in Downside’s garden already block out much of their daylight.  The current gap between the buildings is 7m, excluding garages; maintaining space between buildings and ensuring adequate daylight are basic design principles in a residential development.  Local Plan policy CP4 states that development will only be permitted where it will not harm neighbouring amenity, and neighbours are unaware of the applicant’s long-term plans – he appears to be solely intent on exploiting the maximum space available. 

This is particularly unedifying when the apparent pursuit of financial gain from property speculation by someone who has never lived at the house is placed before a family’s quiet enjoyment of their home next door, whose only home it has been for nine years. Her husband is virtually house-bound, suffering from advanced Parkinson’s Disease, and she is his full-time carer, as well as working from home in an office located in the converted garage. The outside wall of this will be severely affected by the proposed building works.  There are a number of issues relating to the proposed building work, including the garage and shared chimney of the gas boiler outlet which will require joint cooperation.  In view of the seemingly autocratic stand taken by the applicant, this could prevent problems which will be difficult to resolve. 

On a safety note, there is a primary school opposite the two houses, and already an ever-present danger to children from vehicles travelling too fast.  Construction traffic will increase this risk significantly. 

If permitted, this scheme could set an unfortunate precedent and threaten the maintenance of good practice in Battledown.

Mr Mark Underwood, on behalf of the applicant, in support

The applicants plan to extend Downside into a family home.  Personal circumstances are not relevant to the application, but in order to defend the defamation of character of the applicant,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

MJC introduced the application, saying Members on Planning View will have seen the existing summer house – the proposal is considerably larger, and the officer recommendation is to refuse.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Rowena Hay.

Public Speaking:

Mr Lawrence Tucker, applicant, in support

The existing summer house sits 0.5m off the boundary wall, behind a 10ft high hedge which has been in front of the established building line for more than 25 years.  The garden is 461 square metres, of which the existing summerhouse takes up 2% and the proposed takes up an addition 4.4% - so not a huge amount.  Referring to Policy BE1, the report states that the location of the proposed summerhouse will erode open space and be out of keeping, but does not think that the additional space of 4.4% of the garden erodes open space significantly, and has there has been a summerhouse on the site for a quarter of a century, so it cannot be out of keeping.  The report also says that, under Policy CP3, the proposal would be a large and alien addition, but this is an exaggeration, as summerhouses are normally found in gardens, and under CP3(c) it could actually be said to conserve and enhance the built and natural environment, making a significant contribution to the character, appearance and amenity of the site.   The report also says that the proposal fails to comply with policy CP7, but the application is not for an extension or alteration to existing building, so this policy is not valid, and states that the existing summerhouse is unassuming and incidental.  If this is the case, what size would it have to be to be considered assuming and significant – an acceptable size is not quantified.  Is willing to negotiate on size if necessary, but there is no evidence that the summer house will detract from the area and no indication of how the harmful effect is measured – therefore cannot understand this opinion.  Has been in discussion with the planning officer since Tuesday, and understands that replacing the summerhouse like for like may be acceptable.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for a clear illustration of the building on the screen.

BF:  surprised this application is at Committee at all.  The site is in the conservation area, but Pittville Circus Road is only 6 feet away and the proposed summerhouse cannot be seen from there.  There would be concerns if the hedge or wall was taken down, but the reality is that there is currently a dilapidated summerhouse which has been there a long time and has planning permission by default, and it would be OK to replace this like for like.  Is minded to approve – has a summerhouse himself, and enjoys sitting out in it on a summer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Councillor McKinlay declared a personal but not prejudicial interest, as Cabinet Member for the Built Environment.

MJC told Members that this application to vary a condition on the consent granted for North Place and Portland Street Car Park relates to the provision of large-scale drawings prior to the commencement of works.  The application seeks to amend the condition to allow some groundwork before the drawings are complete.  If Members agree, a new planning permission will be issued, reiterating all conditions and S106.  It is a technical and procedural matter, and it is suggested that Members should delegate authority back to Officers to ensure a suitable planning permission.  The application is at Planning Committee because the council still owns the land.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

JF:  does this mean the detailed plans will be seen later?

MJC, in response:

-          planners will not be asked to consider a new planning application.  If this condition is varied, they will issue a revised planning consent, and the applicant can then decide which one to implement.

PT:  will this be done with the Chair and Vice-Chair or just by Officers?

MJC, in response:

-          this depends on the view of the Chairman, but Officers are not suggesting that the chair and Vice-Chair need to be involved.

CC:  is happy with this.

PH:  also keen.

Vote on officer recommendation to delegate authority back to officers in consultation with Chair and Vice-Chair

15 in support – unanimous

Delegate authority back to officers in consultation with Chair and Vice-Chair

Cllr McKinlay declared personal but not prejudicial interest, as Cabinet Member for the

Built Environment.

MJC said this application concerns advertisement signs for the foodstore, and following negotiations, officers are comfortable with the revised drawings and proposal.  This application is also before committee as the council owns the land.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BD:  hasn’t seen the drawings – is the revised proposal smaller?

CC:  the totem sign has been reduced from 5.5m to 4m – there are drawings on the wall to illustrate this.

BF:  has looked at the drawings on the wall, but the intensity of the illumination means nothing – it could be Eddystone Lighthouse or a candle in the wind for all he knew.  Can the officer provide some more clarity?

MJC, in response;

-          we deal with these signs quite routinely - there were similar applications for ASDA – and this level of detail is not considered necessary.  These are quite modest signs in large buildings, and the illumination is usually quite modest as well;

-          regarding the height of the sign, this has been reduced to 4m, following discussion with the Conservation and Heritage Manager.  The highest sign she could support here was 4m, which is where this particular height has come from.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT