Agenda and minutes

Councillor McCloskey.

13/01683/REM GCHQ Oakley

Councillor Garnham – personal but not prejudicial – owns a flat in Phase 2 of the development.

Councillor Fletcher – was not at February committee when this application was discussed at length, and will therefore not take part in the tonight’s debate and will abstain from the vote. 

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th February 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections

CH introduced the application, which is back at Committee this month, following last month’s deferment pending further information and clarity.  The reasons for deferment are set out in the minutes of the previous meeting – concerns about surface water, flood risk, highways issues, Cotswold Conservation Board response, protected species, the safety of the balancing pond, the windows condition and bin storage.  This month’s papers provide the response from the applicant and an update on conditions, including deletion of Condition 5 regarding timber windows and a new condition requiring a construction method statement to be submitted. To remind members, outline permission was granted in 1998, including S106 agreements, followed by an application in 2001 to extend the permission by 15 years to 2016.  A lot of consideration was given to the retention of GCHQ in the town, as it is a major employer, and Phase 1 and 2 have been built, with Phase 3 coming forward within the timescale, in keeping with the conditions and S106.  Officer recommendation is to grant permission, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Ms Susann Ropella, local resident, in objection

Does not oppose the development in principal and recognises the need for housing and for the site to be developed, but does not consider plans for Phase 3 to address important issues which will reduce the quality of life and cause health and safety risks for the residents of all three phases of the development.

Firstly, traffic issues:  the layout of Phases 1 and 2 has narrow roads, on-street parking, tight and blind corners, and playgrounds next to main roads.  The roads cannot cope with existing traffic and are incapable of coping with additional traffic from Phase 3 and Sainsbury’s petrol station. Traffic access to Phase 3 will be via Phases 1 and 2, via the quickest and easiest route – Clearwell Gardens and Brockweir Road – creating an extra burden on residents on that side of the development.  There is already speeding and reckless driving on the development, and traffic calming measures are needed. 

The single entrance to the estate at Redmarley Road causes significant traffic hazards:  on-road parking effectively makes it a single file road; no parking zones; collisions and near collisions are frequent; Sainsbury’s lorries cannot get through and cause congestion by backing out; dangerous petrol tankers will have to deliver via Sainsbury’s car park. More worrying and a major concern is inaccessibility for emergency services – a resident paramedic says that ambulances have been delayed due the traffic; Phase 3 will make this bad situation worse and put people’s lives at risk.

Regarding flood risk, not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

EP introduced the application, to demolish the existing dwelling at the junction of London Road and Ryeworth Road, and replace with two contemporary dwellings.  The change of levels within the site will require a considerable amount of excavation work to enable this.  The application is at Committee because the Parish Council has objected. Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Gavin Hill, neighbour, in objection

Lives immediately next door to the application site, and while having no objection to the principle of demolition and erection of two new dwellings – which the site can accommodate with negligible highways impact – is strongly concerned about the contemporary architecture proposed.  In general, likes contemporary architecture where it is coherent and sits well in its setting, but this scheme does neither, and is out of keeping with the Cudnall Street Conservation Area in which is lies.  It is also out of keeping with the current street frontage on an important approach to town – existing dwellings on both sides are traditional, with pitched roofs.  The contemporary, flat-roofed dwellings would represent an unwelcome interruption to the existing street frontage.  This is not infill or garden-grabbing – it is an important street frontage and any new proposal should conform rather than be at odds with it.  Cannot agree with the Architects’ Panel’s view that the proposal sits comfortably with its neighbours, agreeing rather with the Civic Society and Parish Council, who consider it shows little respect for its context and is not appropriate in this location.  The officer report states that in line with the NPPF, the proposal replaces poor design with better design, responds to the local character, and doesn’t result in significant harm to the conservation area – but in fact it fails on all these points.  In recent years, No. 288 London Road was demolished and replaced with 12 dwellings of traditional design, including pitched roofs.  These blend well into the street scene and are an improvement on what was there before.  This proposal should have been designed along similar lines. 

Member debate:

PT:  there is some question in the report about red or buff bricks – what was decided?

RG:  this is interesting – the Architects’ Panel says yes, the Civic Society says no.  Recognises the concern about the design of the proposed dwellings in the conservation area, and notes the Conservation Officer’s request that the hedge be retained to shield the buildings.  Is worried about this, looking to the future – if the scheme is OK as long as it is disguised, it must be the wrong design?

RW:  wishes common sense could be applied here.  One look is all it takes to see that this proposal is appalling and shouldn’t  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

EP introduced the application, which is at Committee due to an objection from the Parish Council.  Officers are happy that it complies with council guidance on extensions regarding impact and design.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  when this application was sent to the Parish Council, were they aware that it complies with the light test and other policies.  If so, why have they objected?

CC:  would like to strengthen interaction between parish councils and the planning authority, to increase their understanding of the planning process. 

BD:  how do we know if anyone else tried to object on line in view of problems as mentioned earlier?

EP, in response:

-          parish councils are given a copy of the plans and are at liberty to make any comments they wish;  there are plans to improve their understanding of the planning process;

-          it’s true that the website is occasionally out of action, but not usually for more than one day.  We accept representations up to the date of the committee meeting, and the neighbour most affected by this proposal has made his objections known.

BD:  asks that the planning department put in an objection to ICT about lack of service – it is not on.

JF:  do parish councils have a copy of the Local Plan, the NPPF etc so that they know the policies they can refer to?  They don’t mention any policies in their objections, and it’s important that they should know where they’re coming from.

MJC, in response:

-          not in relation to this application in particular, officers are starting to have discussions with parish councils at the C5 group.  MJC and CH will attend the next meeting to talk about S106 agreements, and hope to discuss planning application comments, things the parish councils need to know about, and how to make their comments for relevant and useful.  This is work in progress.

PT:  EP said we accept representations right up to the last minute before planning committee, but people don’t realise this.  Neighbour letters give a date beyond which representations won’t be taken into consideration.  Maybe this should be changed to the date of the planning committee?

PJ:  agrees that parish councils should be encouraged to comment, but also feels that neighbours who object should come to Committee in person.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT