Agenda and minutes

Councillor Barnes, Councillor Fletcher.

13/01683/REM GCHQ Oakley

Councillor McCloskey – personal but not prejudicial – is a member of Cotswold Conservation Board

Councillor Garnham – personal but not prejudicial – owns a flat in Phase 2 of GCHQ Oakley.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 16^th January 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

CH introduced the application as described above.  The outline application was originally submitted in 1999, with an S106 agreement attached, and was followed by an application to extend the time period to 2016. The Phase 1 REM application was approved in 2006, including the supermarket, and Phase 2 in 2007.  The proposed dwellings range from one to five bedrooms, and from two to three storeys, with some apartments included.  The proposed finish is brick and/or render, with main access via Hales Road, and access to 40 dwellings at the top of the site via Harp Hill.

Public Speaking:

Mr Darren Beer, agent for applicant, in support

Told Members a full suite of pre-app discussions took place in May 2013, with CBC, GCC, the Civic Society and the Architects’ Panel.  CBC urban design team welcomed the design, the Civic Society gave a positive response, and the Architects’ Panel is comfortable with the masterplan with regard to principle, density and relationship to the AONB among other things.  The design and lay-out of the masterplan has been incorporated, including better connections, but the density has been reduced, with 20dph on land adjacent to the AONB, and 40dph further into the site, averaging at 30dph in total.  There is amenity green space for recreation and to assist with surface water, TPO’d trees are retained, an over-provision of car parking, ten car-parking spaces retained for allotments, as required by CBC, and secondary and tertiary streets incorporated.  A bus route has been agreed with GCC, there is full access for emergency services, and landscaping and green connections are all in place.  The design of the buildings is a mix of traditional, modern and contemporary, using locally requisitioned materials.

Councillor Colin Hay, on behalf of local residents

Would like some more in-depth answer to questions – the reason he is addressing Committee. The outline permission was given a long time ago and things have moved on since then.  Residents of Priors Road are very worried about the impact of the proposal on the junction with Priors Road, in addition to concerns about the impact on the Hales Road/London Road and Priors Road/Prestbury Road junctions.  Recalls the decision on the Starvehall Farm application and the objections that this road could end up a London Road to Evesham Road through-route, and this proposal could make it even worse – highways officers need to be quizzed to make sure that this road is up to scratch. 

Regarding drainage, the developer has done a lot to get sustainable urban drainage right, using 100 years plus 30% as a criterion – we need to be clear that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

MPayne introduced the proposal as above, saying that revisions have been sought during consideration which reduced the number of dwellings from 10 to 9.  The proposal includes three traditional terraced houses facing Cirencester Road, and three sets of more contemporary semi-detached dwellings within the site.  There are seven 4-bedroomed houses and two 3-bedroomed, all of which benefit from extra accommodation at basement level.  The application is at planning committee on account of an objection from the parish council. 

Public Speaking:

David Jones, agent, in support

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak, as planning consultant for the proposal, saying it is a full application for nine dwellings, having undergone a number of revisions after careful consideration of neighbours’ objections – reduction in the number of dwelling, increase in parking provision, reduction in the height of the buildings.  In view of the well-written report, had not been going to speak at committee, but after seeing Martin Horwood’s late objection, regretting the loss of the public house, decided to do so.  Refusal to grant planning permission must rely on adopted policies, the SPG of the NPPF.  Mr Horwood has cited policy RC1, which is included in the Local Plan to prevent premises or land with community value from being lost, more specifically to prevent churches from being converted to public houses or commercial/entertainment venues.  Reminds Members of the Greyhound pub which was converted into five apartments.  The Inspector read RC1 and supporting texts and considered it open to doubt the fact that the commercial venues were used for evening classes could mean they fall within the terms of the policy.  The Inspector did not consider that RC1 is relevant to commercial establishments, and therefore Mr Horwood’s comments do not bear close scrutiny.  Hopes Members will support the officer recommendation and vote in support.

Member debate:

RG:  Martin Horwood’s letter arrived very late in the day, and while it’s shame that a potential buyer wasn’t found at an earlier stage and a pity that the pub is going, it’s no surprise if it isn’t supported by local people.  Are the Trees Officer’s comments covered by Condition 10?  Wants all angles covered.

PT:  the opposite side of the coin is that several of the neighbour letters refer to a number of offers to buy the pub, including some over the asking price, but the developer chose not to consider them.  We need to look at what they did to sell this pub as opposed to developing the land.  Is very sad that so many pubs are going – we should take into account that they are gathering places for local people.  Would like to know why the pub was sold – cannot believe that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

In consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, this application will now be decided under delegated powers, and will therefore NOT be considered at the meeting.

This item was decided under delegated powers and was not considered at the meeting.

MP described the application as above, adding that revised plans have been submitted to address the concerns of the Architects’ Panel and Conservation Officer.  Two additional off-street parking spaces have been provided.  The application is at committee at the request of Councillor Jordan.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Paula Loughlin, local resident, in objection

The design of the proposed dwellings is out-of-keeping with the character of Victoria Terrace, which is traditional Victorian in style.  The proposed flat roof and fibre glass roofing materials are contrary to the Local Plan, para 5.36 – and this, together with the three-storey construction, represents over development and will make the new houses stick out like a sore thumb.  Over-shadowing, over-looking and loss of privacy are also concerns for local resident.  Parking is another issue – it is already difficult in Victoria Terrace and these additional dwellings will add to the problem.  With three storeys and four bedrooms, each house is likely to bring two extra cars, added to which the two-entrance arrangement to the houses will take away two existing on-street parking spaces.  Existing difficulties with manoeuvring in Victoria Terrace will become even worse with the two new properties.  Additional considerations are the construction method statement – the time restrictions for development, the unadopted highway and the effect on the road surface.  If permission is granted, residents request a condition to ensure that the flat roofs are not used as terraces or roof gardens, which could cause noise and disturbance to neighbours.

Councillor Jordan, in objection

Has no objection to the demolition of the bungalow but it concerned about what is proposed in its place.  This site is at the end of the terrace, and although the existing dwelling may have less style than those around it, what is proposed is potential over-development – three storeys high, and completely different from the existing dwellings in style and design.  The issue of parking and transport is important – it is already a problem in Victoria Terrace, and although the additional parking spaces for the proposed dwellings is good, there is still the problem of getting in and out.  As with Brighton Road, additional space for turning would be helpful.  Regarding the highway, a large pothole appeared in the road last June – this is an unadopted road and the issues here are similar to what has been discussed at GCHQ Oakley, only smaller in scale. Asks if anything can be done through a construction method statement - construction vehicles could well damage the road, and would the developer be liable for this?  These are the two big concerns of residents – the scale of the development and parking/highway issues.

Member debate:

SW:  doesn’t like the third storey.  Councillor Jordan has made a good point about the state  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

CH introduced the application, which is exactly the same as the scheme originally submitted in 2011.  This was subsequently amended, to achieve a set-back of the two-storey element and a red brick finish, and permission was duly granted.  The applicant has now re-submitted the original scheme, which is not in line with CP7 or the SPD on extensions regarding subservience of the extension.

Mr Collard, applicant, in support

The information and photographs submitted by SFPlanning highlight that the SPD allows for what is proposed.  Has lived in the house for some years – it is detached and a bit scruffy, but he and his wife love the area and would like their children there.  Is happy to make a big financial commitment in order to achieve the ideal family home, and is on friendly terms with the neighbours, who all support the proposal.  There are two changes from the permission granted:  the insulated rendering, rather than red brick, is proposed for practical reasons.  The bricks are in poor condition – the render will protect them and also reduce heat loss by 80%, so ensuring lower heating bills.  There is a mix of rendered and red brick houses in the NauntonPark area.  Regarding the first floor setback, the proposal would have less impact than others, and to set it back would be damaging to the overall design.  The aim is not simply to make the house symmetrical, but to build in a properly designed way.  There are examples of semi-detached houses extended without any setback in the conservation area, proving that it is not always required.  There have been no negative comments from neighbours, and a setback would reduce the amount of space available for the growing family.  If Members decide to support the officer’s recommendation, requests that there be a separate vote on the render.

Member debate:

SW:  this was the subject of great debate on planning view, with the question asked:  if this house was being built from scratch now, would we allow it?  The answer is yes, and is therefore struggling with the argument that the extension needs to be set back.  Recalls an application which was refused because it extended 1m beyond the garage but was subsequently allowed at appeal.  Revisited the house once the extension had been built and noted it was not overbearing as had been stated in the report.  This property is currently smaller than the houses on either side and may be slightly larger when the extension is done, but it will fit perfectly.  Regarding the render, if it helps with energy conservation, it should be allowed; if it doesn’t, it should remain brick.  Is happy with the design.

KS:  will support the application.  Has utmost  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

EP reminded Members that there are two schemes with consent on this site for 10 and 7 dwellings, with a different combination of elements approved on each, one with flat roofs and one with mansard roofs.  The application is at committee at the request of Councillors Coleman and Holliday.

Public Speaking:

Mr Farmer, local resident, in objection

On behalf of local residents, said there are two main reasons for objection. The second application, approved in 2012, is preferred by neighbours, as it is the best design and lowest density.  People are frustrated with the planning system which allows developers to submit scheme after scheme until they get what they want.  Can see the weight of professional opinion and realises that there are two schemes already approved, so residents are pretty much caught in a cleft stick, with the strong impression that this scheme will be approved the CBC or at appeal.  The officer has done a good job with the conditions, but three of these could be strengthened.  Would like an amendment of Condition 16 or assurances from the Committee that the construction method statement will only be approved after consultation with residents – this would address a number of concerns, such as loss of telephone and internet services when the telegraph pole is removed.  Commends the approval of recreational facilities, but would like an amendment of Condition 14 to ensure that these too will only be approved after consultation with residents – a collaborative approach, preferably with the developers, is needed to address local needs.  Lastly, regarding Condition 1, considers that five years is too long for implementation – the second application has until 2017, and residents don’t want to be kept in limbo for another two years after this, with the possibility of squatters moving into the derelict property.  There are further concerns about traffic which Councillor Holliday will address, but his message is that local people will be happier if these conditions are strengthened and they would like to work in collaboration of the council and developer to see this done.

Councillor Holliday, on behalf of local residents

Residents are unhappy about the timing of the consultation over Christmas, resulting in some of their comments not being as detailed as they would have liked.  Expects Members are frustrated to be considering another application on this site, but while neighbours accept that some development is going to take place, they want to be sure it will be done in consultation with them, in a spirit of collaboration and goodwill.  New DawnHomes have made it clear over the years that they don’t want to consult with residents, which is disappointing. 

Residents accept the need for the site to be developed, if only to prevent the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

EP explained that this proposal is for an extension to an existing terrace on Gloucester Road, opposite the train station.  The recommendation is to refuse on design grounds, the impact on amenity and lack of parking  There is an update on this third refusal reason – the applicant submitted a parking report yesterday, stating that this is a sustainable location so close to the train station, but officers still recommend refusal for the first two reasons.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Holliday, in objection

Residents’ concerns are well documented in the papers, but would remind Members that the application site fronting onto Gloucester Road is only half of the development site.  Development of this site may be a good thing but it needs to be right for the site, and have adequate parking provision and access.  On planning view, Members will have seen that parking in Roman Road is a big problem for residents, partly due to its proximity to the railway station – cars are sometimes parked for two weeks while their owners go on holiday – leaving residents unable to park in their own road.  Permitting this application with no parking provision would make it even worse.  There are concerns about access for emergency and refuse vehicles to the site, and highway safety issues including access and egress to the site by construction vehicles and the danger of the additional traffic to residents and members of the public using the road.  Residents and councillors remember too well the dangers cause in this respect by unlicensed car lot whose enforcement to cease trading went on for far too long.  If the applicant had carried out a parking survey as requested, these access and highways issues would have been highlighted.  Urges committee to strongly consider residents’ valid objections and refuse the application.

Member debate:

MS:  if there is a change to the refusal reasons as stated, with regard to traffic and parking, considers that Members should have a proper update before they make their decision.

RG:  the NPPF talks about severe impact of new dwellings, but this scheme provides no off-street parking.  It may be that none of the occupants will have a car, but if only half of them do, where will they park?  The lay-by is full of cars of people going to the shop, Roman Road is full.  After 8.00pm there will be nowhere to park.  This scheme will have a severe impact on on-street parking, and maybe should be deferred to hear what the developer proposes to do about it.

RW:  it would be absurd to remove the third refusal reason, as anyone who ever needs to park near the station is well aware of the acute problems there – it is always extremely difficult to park.  Would vote against the proposal if this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.