Agenda and minutes

Councillors Driver, Fletcher, Garnham, Jeffries, Sudbury

14/00297/FUL and 14/00298/FUL 25 Bennington Street

Councillor Walklett – is speaking in support of the application as ward councillor.  Will not participate in the debate or vote.

14/00122/FUL Ham Court, Ham Road

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

There were none.

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

MJC introduced the application by describing the proposal as above and the demolition work to be undertaken.  The application is at committee at the request of Councillor Garnham.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

SW:  generally happy with the application, but for clarity, what is the difference between the footprint of the existing and the proposed buildings?   Also, what is the relative density of the proposal?

BF:  the NPPF Paragraph 7 states that the planning system should protect and enhance the built environment, but this application does neither.  What is proposed is a new building, and a larger footprint.  Also, for clarification:  the ‘retirement’ apartments are intended for people aged 65 or over, but with the retirement age increasing to 67, it is quite possible that some of the future residents will still be working for a living.

GB:  on planning view, asked about the balconies and neighbours’ concerns about being overlooked – has this been resolved?  The two wings of the building are in close proximity to Lypiatt Mews.

AC:  would like to hear more from the Conservation Officer as to why the front building can be so radically changed inside.  Also concerned about the amount of parking, which is totally inadequate.

MS:  would like an explanation about what has happened to the lift shafts.  Regarding the footprint, considers that there will be very little difference between the existing and the proposed buildings, as the proposed wings at the back are narrower than what is there now.  Agrees with AC that parking is a concern – the residents will be people of an age who will happily drive the Devon and back, for example, so there will be a lot of cars to park, and most of the parking spaces are at the front of the building.  Does not have any suggested refusal reasons, but is worried about these items. 

HM:  it is unfortunate that the Highways Officer isn’t present to answer concerns about parking arrangements.  Pleased to see this significant site being brought back to full use, but there are a few businesses still operating in the listed building, in a similar situation to the businesses on the Leckhampton Trading Estate in a previous application.  There was a CBC initiative to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Cllr Walklett declared an interest on this application – spoke as ward councillor in support, and abstained from the debate and vote.

Before consideration of these two applications, MJC provided information on their history.  The first application is for replacement shopfront and door, and is before committee because of the recent history of this application and the interest of Councillors Ryder and Walklett.  Planning permission was originally granted in 2011, for conversion of the building into two flats, with retention of the historic shop front and a condition requiring a construction method statement on how the shop front would be repaired in situ.  In 2012, an application was received to remove the shop front – this was refused, and subsequently dismissed at appeal – the inspector’s decision letter is attached to the report.  The current application is identical, apart from the materials – timber windows are now proposed.  Officer recommendation is to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mr Burnett, applicant, in support

Has recently received information which indicates that the Council believes this problem could be solved by two pillars on either side of the window with an RSJ over the top.  This is very wrong.  The consultant has suggested it would require 400mm RSJ inside the window and to the basement.  Has provided Members with several photographic examples of UPVC windows in similar properties around the town – Portland Place in Pittville, and Shurdington Road, where a shop front window has been removed and replaced with a UPVC window.  When the beam became compromised, he spoke to David Robinson in Building Control; Duncan Hage also saw photos of the beam and said it was a false structure.  A meeting was arranged with Ian Smith two weeks later, but this was cancelled at 20 minutes’ notice, and it was suggested that Mr Burnett should consult an engineer.  Andrew Silcock made an inspection and wrote a report, concluding that the beam was unsafe and compromised.  A meeting at the site was attended by Martin Chandler, Karen Radford, Dave Burrows, Mr Burnett, his father, Andrew Silcock.  Karen Radford said it would be easy to install a 400mm beam, but did not take into account the deflection rate.  This is not the original window although Karen Radford says it dates back to before the 1900s.  Duncan Hage was not at the meeting – Dave Burrows turned up uninvited and knowing nothing about the site.  Duncan Hage had previously said that the downstairs window could not take the deflection.  Karen Radford rejected this proposition, and other suggestions have also been rejected by Martin Chandler.  Believes all propositions are rejected due to a complaint he made about Karen Radford’s behaviour towards him in 2012.

Councillor Walklett, in support

Addressed Committee in support of Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

CC:  MS has raised an important point as to whether or not it is appropriate that this application is discussed tonight.  Proposes hearing from the officer and applicant and then deciding whether there should be move to defer or not.

MJC:  this application for the retention of two UPVC windows concerns the same scheme as the previous one, and dates back to the 2011 application.  Permission was granted for timber windows but the applicant installed UPVC. This application seeks to retain them. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Burnett, applicant, in support

Referred again to the photographs he has provided which show several examples of UPVC windows in older properties in conservation areas.  With the emphasis on affordable living, these windows are energy-efficient and help reduce the cost of bills.  Their installation also helps to make it possible to convert dilapidated commercial buildings into affordable homes.  With regard to COU applications in conservation areas, The Town and Country Act says, in respect of shops in conservation areas, it is better to conserve than preserve.  There have been no comments from local residents.  MJC has said CBC has to comply with planning guidance, but UPVC is in keeping with the rest of the street scene and not detrimental - 80% of the windows in Bennington Street are UPVC.  Affordable housing is of paramount importance, and the windows installed are of high qualityand meet all the new requirements.  Has been told by a member of the Civic Society that it was not consulted and took no responsibility for 2007 report – this is very, very important. [Note:  Mr Burnett did not specify which report he was referring to here.]

Member debate:

MS:  in view of the previous discussion, moves to defer this application, so that the whole frontage of the building can be sorted out in one go, rather than piecemeal.

SW:  considers the two applications to be very separate.  Went on planning view, and felt that unless you looked extremely closely at the UPVC windows they look a lot like wooden sash windows.  They have been tastefully done and are not big and bulky like some UPVC windows – is happy for them to stay.  The design is OK and it is a little bit picky to insist the windows are timber.  If all the others in the street were made of timber, this would be a different matter, but it seems a little unfair to pick on this particular building, and pushing a bit too far to insist on the windows being changed.

AC:  agrees with SW.  There is a mishmash of windows along the street, and these tick the right boxes – conserve heat, reduce draughts.  Whatever is eventually decided for the ground floor, considers these upper windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Councillors Godwin and Fisher were absence from the Chamber for the debate and vote on this item

MJC introduced the application, which is at Committee because the Parish Council has objected, believing the proposal to be inappropriate in the AONB.  The applicant had previously installed unauthorised solar panels on the barn, but these have now been removed and this application is to replace them.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

HM:  as a member of the Cotswold Conservation Board, said their management plan is keen to promote renewable energy so as not to despoil the countryside, but is also concerned about the look of the countryside too.  As it has raised no objection here, it seems reasonable that the Committee cannot object either.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

EP told Members that this is a full planning and listed building consent application to enlarge the opening at ground floor level, and is at Committee at the request of Councillor Garnham.  The recommendation to refuse is due to concerns about the impact of the work on the listed building.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Diana Jones, agent, in support

There is concern about the harm to the listed building and loss of historic fabric from the original rear wall, and that the proposal will be out of character.  The existing double doors are not the original fenestration, are narrower than the sash windows above, and not in alignment with them.  They were approved in 1999, when the lower ground floor was modified with minimum loss of original fabric.     The applicants have tried to address the officers’ concerns by reducing the width of the proposed door from four panes to three. The LPA approved alterations required when converting three houses in Ashford Road to maisonettes in 1999, involving staircases, fenestrations, ground, upper ground, metal balconies.  The proposed changes at No. 7 are inconsequential, and the conservation officer’s views are therefore disappointing.  This is a single family dwelling, and it is absurd to take issue with minor change which creates a single opening at basement level, preserves the character of the listed building, and is complementary not jarring with original windows.

Member debate:

AC:  would want to do the same himself if he lived in this house.  Considers the proposal eminently sensible, the alterations will only be seen by the occupants, and there is no reason not to permit it.

SW:  is of the same view – this is a very small alteration.  Has heard KR’s table top analogy about the cumulative effects of small alterations to listed buildings, and if the proposed changes were at the front of the building or to be viewed widely, would be very concerned.  However, the door is not centred under the window above and the proposal will make it more balanced and look better aesthetically.  If the officer can make a recommendation as to the type of door, has no worries, and has no issue with widening the opening.  Proposes that the application is permitted.

JW:  also sees nothing to object to here, and agrees with AC and SW.

MS:  agrees with them too.  You would need to be in a helicopter to see this alteration; it will do no harm and will improve the quality of life for the residents.  Supports the move the permit.

EP, in response:

-          to reiterate the issue, officers are principally concerned with the loss of historic fabric and widening of the opening, with no justification regarding public benefit.

KR, in response:

-          is glad to hear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Councillor Walkett left the meeting before the debate and vote on this item

EP described the application for a number of alterations to an existing bungalow, at Committee because the Parish Council consider these to be excessive and have objected.  Officers consider the proposals to be acceptable, as set out in the report.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

MS:  contrary to the Parish Council, considers this proposal a planning gain – the building will look better from the front, and it will be good to see the sheds at the back disappearing.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

EP explained that the external soil pipes will replace internal ones which are beyond repair, and will primarily be situated at the back of the building.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

MS:  can any new down pipes on the front of the building be the colour of the existing ones?

EP, in response:

-          confirmed that the new pipes will be in keeping with existing ones.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support - unanimous

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 8.00pm

There were none.