Agenda and minutes

Councillor Wheeler.

5a:  13/01459/COU Castle Dream Stud

• Councillor McCloskey – personal but not prejudicial – is a member of the Cotswold Conservation Board; application site is in AONB.

5b:  13/01694/FUL Land adjacent to Dunalley Primary School

• Councillor Driver – personal and prejudicial – NSC was one of her mayoral charities
• Councillor Sudbury – personal and prejudicial – has friends who are staff of NSC

(Councillor Barnes confirmed that his interest in the previous application on this site was due to his connection with St Vincent’s, which is not relevant here.)

5d:  13/02026/FUL 9 Sandy Lane

• Councillor Hall – personal and prejudicial – has personal friendship with the applicant’s family and neighbour over and above being ward councillor

5e:  13/02055/LBC Phone Boxes, Promenade

• Councillor McKinlay – personal – is cabinet member for the Built Environment and CBC is the applicant, but has not been involved in this particular project; is also a member of Cheltenham Task Force.
• Councillor Garnham – personal – is a member of the Cheltenham Task Force, but has not been involved in this particular project.

5f:  13/02049/CACN Grounds, St Mary’s Church

• Councillor Driver – personal and prejudicial – is a member of the Friends Committee which is organising the regeneration of the church grounds.
• Councillor Barnes – personal but not prejudicial – makes an annual contribution to the Friends of St Mary’s but has no other involvement.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 21^st November 2013* be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections. 

[*NB:  there was no Planning Committee in December 2013.]

WH introduced the application:  the site is currently occupied on a temporary basis by a single gypsy/traveller family.  The officer recommendation is for a personal temporary permission, subject to the conditions set out in the report

Public Speaking:

Mr Humphris, local resident

Many residents agree with the officer recommendation for a personal temporary three-year permission, in the name of ‘Mrs Cox’, not ‘a traveller family’.  They would like the original conditions of the Planning Inspector to be adhered to – allowing only two caravans on site, one static, one tourer for a dependant child – legally up to 16 years old, or 16-18 year old in full time education, but not 16-18 years old with spouse or children.  Three large caravans are not needed and could result in unauthorised accommodation and too much intensification of development at the site. 

On the matter of drainage, the 2011 Inspector was satisfied with site drainage, but the stable annexe with toilet and washing machine have since been added, and particularly in the summer grey water runs into an open drain in Mill Lane and often into an adjoining field full of sheep.  Three caravans exacerbate this problem, and an ancient pond nearby has been filled with hardcore which adds to the overflow in wet weather. 

The brick day room should be the subject of a separate application; questions whether it would still be needed, bearing in mind the stable annexe.  A condition forbidding any further development of building or access to the site and obviating the need for retrospective vexatious applications would be appreciated. The emerging JCS Policy C4 deals with gypsy and traveller sites, and one criterion for their location states that any development is not within area of sensitive landscape.  To date, CBC has maintained and protected the character of the local AONB, and residents urge it to uphold this record by allowing Mrs Cox a temporary permission for three further years and upholding the Inspector’s recommendations and conditions to protect AONB site until the situation regarding gypsy and traveller sites in the JCS area becomes clearer.

Member debate:

BD:  these comments sum up the problem well.  Concerned that the family are not really ‘travellers’ – if they were, they would stay just a few days and move on – so having trouble in squaring the circle in this respect. 

HM:  as a general comment, letters concerning the revised plans were sent out over the Christmas period and didn’t give residents much time to respond.  As it happened, the changes were minor and the drawings more accurate, but it would be good for the planning department to bear this in mind in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Councillor Driver and Councillor Sudbury left the Chamber for this debate (see above)

MJC introduced the application, and reminded Members of the recent history of the site:  there is an extant permission for development by St Vincent’s, but this is an altogether different scheme

Public Speaking:

Mr David Ellis, Chief Executive of National Star Foundation, in support

Introduced himself to Members, and is speaking personally in support of this application, because it is so important.  The report is thorough and clear, explaining the background, the existing permission, and how this scheme is a great improvement on it – a well-considered solution for a sensitive site, next to Pittville Park and in the conservation area.  National Star has worked carefully with consultees, designers, users and stake-holders, and proposal is fully compliant with planning policy.  Explained why this proposal is so important to the wider social benefit of those people with disabilities who use NSF’s specialist provision.   National Star is a Gloucestershire-based charity, established over 45 years ago, and providing specialist education, personal development, residential and other services for young people and adults with complex disabilities and severe disabilities.  Its work is excellent and nationally significant, judged in 2012 to be outstanding by OFSTED, and recognised by the Care Quality Commission for its quality and standard of services.  The work and plans for this site have been endorsed by the Education Funding Agency on behalf of the Department of Education, through the exceptional commitment of £2.2m towards this specialist facility.  It will provide a safe and supported environment for young people with disabilities to practice and develop essential skills for their future adult lives, including access to education, employment for training, or simply to communicate, gain freedom, and manage everyday tasks, which promote equality and allow them to be active members of society.

Compared with the previous scheme, the two-storey element to West Drive is in line with street scene, with a smaller overall footprint and mass; smaller buildings, more dispersed throughout site, improve the view through the site, and landscaping acts as a transition between the  school, park and surrounding residential area. The proposal will meet highly-specialised requirements, and provide an outstanding resource, enabling young people and adults with disabilities to be embraced as part of their community. The life-enhancing outcomes will be widespread, from the proximity to PittvillePark and ease of access to the town centre and wider facilities on offer in Cheltenham.  Is grateful for feedback, time and advice received, and hopes Members will support the scheme.

Member debate:

JF:  applauds all the work done by the National StarCollege, but voted against the previous application on this site, which was opposed by the Conservation and Heritage Officer and by English Heritage.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

MJC introduced the proposal, an outline application with all matters reserved, other than access.  A similar application on this site was refused by committee some months ago; the main difference between that application and the current one is that the site is now larger.  It has been consulted on in the usual way, and the recommendation is to permit, subject to a condition to guide the applicant at the reserved matters stage.

Public Speaking:

None

Member debate:

MS:  disappointed that this application is back again so soon, and the fact that it is now on a larger bit of land does not make any material difference to the previous refusal reasons.  This is over-development, in conflict with the SPD which is very clear about backland development’s visual connection to the existing street.  Planning Committee did the right thing last time in refusing.  Policy CP7 is still applicable, residents of 83B New Barn Lane are concerned about the impact on their property, and the proposal is too crammed in – a quart in a pint pot.  Moves to refuse for same reasons as used last time.

RG:  supports this move.  A house has already been legitimately constructed in the garden of 81 New Barn Lane, and now the applicant is trying to squeeze in another, with the only difference between this and the previous application being a little rectangle of land behind 82B.  This is not enough to make any difference to the previous refusal reasons.  The new application includes a shed and hardstanding, but the effect on 83B will be the same.  The addition of the extra land does not win him over.  The applicant may have the right to reply, but this doesn’t mean the Committee has to agree.

HM:  doesn’t like outline applications.  The elevational drawings are very bland - the officer says these will not be binding, but is unhappy with them and would like to see something with more imagination.  The proposal still conflicts with policy CP7 and the SPD.  Agrees with MS’s move to refuse, but wonders why officers have changed their minds.

MJC, in response:

-          to HM’s question (and covering several other points at the same time):  officers haven’t actually changed their minds, as the recommendation for the previous application was also to permit.  The Committee gave its view very clearly, and officers are now defending their refusal reasons at appeal – statements of case have been submitted;

-          however, this application is materially different.  The additional land overcomes the previous refusal reason that the proposal was cramped and overcrowded – with more land, the applicant has freed up what can be done with the development.  The lay-out is only indicative, and the building could be moved to the south, in line with 82B, still leaving a reasonable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Councillor Hall left the Chamber for this debate (see above)

WH described the application as above, with the officer recommendation to approve.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for an illustration of the existing house (displayed on wall).  Cannot support this proposal.  At the moment, it is an ‘old-fashioned’ house, in keeping with the street scene.  Taking off the roof and turning the house into a modern edifice is not appealing – cannot support it in any way, shape or form.  If it was a modern extension on the side or rear of the house, that might be OK, but taking the roof off will destroy the symmetry of the street.

KS:  agrees with PT, and considers this application a travesty.  This is a pretty house which fits in well with the street scene.  Does not consider this approach appropriate here – 1970s houses aren’t the most appealing, but this is pretty and in a prominent site.  Has nothing against modern architecture but considers it the wrong approach here.  A variety of architectural styles is good, and maybe a modern extension at the back of a property, but this proposal is not right in this location.  There is a modern extension next door, but it is only a single storey and not visible from the street.  The proposed scheme is very substantial, very noticeable, and will change the character of Sandy Lane.  Cannot support it.

PJ:  takes the opposite view and cannot refuse it.  The character of Sandy Lane has been changed by previous applications, and this proposal is like a mini-Grand Design.  The house is pretty, but it could be demolished and completely rebuilt.  There is enough space front and back for the proposed scheme.  Doesn’t usually like modern designs, but likes this one.

BD:  personally thinks the proposal looks horrible – but will support it anyway.  Asked for clarification of the picture, in which the house next door is not visible from the road.

HM:  like PJ, likes the application.  The existing house is very solid but tired, and would need considerable restoration.  The proposed scheme is exciting.  Sandy Lane has many different styles of architecture, and there are other modern houses further up the road.

GB:  on balance, will support the proposal but is concerned that on site, the 1.5-storey conservatory seemed to be very close to the neighbouring building on the right side - worried by this, but not enough to vote against it.  There will be an impact on No. 7 – is there anything to be done to ameliorate this?

RG:  this is a prominent site and the new building has to be right with materials and finish.  Thinking about some of the schemes Members saw on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

MJC introduced the application, at committee because CBC is the applicant.  In accordance with this, if Members grant planning consent, it will be need to be ratified by the government to ensure the Council isn’t abusing its power.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  supports the application – considers it an innovative idea, and the phone boxes need to be used (although when she tried to use one recently, her money got stuck).  It’s good that they will stay in the Promenade, and this application is to be welcomed. 

BD:  pointed out that the proposed signs regarding the nearest working phone boxes shown on the drawing on the wall are incorrect – there is another one  a lot closer on St George’s Road.  Would like to see a picture of what the finished phone boxes will look like.  Hopes they will still look like phone boxes, as visitors like to take pictures of them.

PT:  is intrigued that one of the phone boxes will house a metered electrical supply.  Also thinks it a good idea to keep one working phone.

MJC, in response:

-          the electrical supply is to aid the markets on the Promenade – they will be able to hook up, and not have to reply on generators; thus the phone box will serve a dual use;

-          regarding working phone boxes, there is a requirement to provide a certain number of these, but this is not part of the planning requirement.  There are other working phone boxes in the town centre, functioning and accessible;

-          the phone boxes will still be red and look as they do now, but will be completely refurbished, with doors re-hung, re-glazed etc;  they will still read as red phone boxes, but in better condition;

-          there will be signs on the phone boxes, stating that they are now managed by The Wilson, and directing people to the nearest public phone box.

BD:  asked if these signs will be on the outside.

MJC, in response:

-          this is described clearly in the report – they will be on the inside.

HM:  asked for confirmation that they will still be red – they should be, as befits their iconic status.

BF:  said the proposal was a novel idea and would be better than ‘dead’ phone boxes.

RG:  is glad the phone boxes are being taken away in stages and not all at once.

GB:  when they are used for art exhibitions, will people still go inside them to look at the art, and will they be locked at night?  People have been known to use phone boxes for anti-social purposes.

MJC, in response:

-          they will be used for art installations,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Councillor Driver left the Chamber for this debate (see above) and the rest of the meeting

LM explained that this is a CBC application, and is required to improve light levels and personal security in the church yard.  It is also part of the regeneration and general improvements to the area.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for clarification of which trees were coming out and which were to be worked on.

LM, in response:

-          explained by reference to the drawing on the screen which trees were to be removed and which to be worked on.  Only T4, T5 and T27 are to be removed.

Vote on officer recommendation to raise no objection

13 in support – unanimous

NO OBJECTION RAISED

There was none.