Agenda and minutes

In the absence of the chairman Councillor Garth Barnes and a vice chairman, due to no nomination having been approved in time for the meeting, One Legal Solicitor Cheryl Lester asked for nominations for a chairman for the meeting.  Councillor Bernard Fisher proposed Councillor Klara Sudbury, who was appointed chairman for the purpose of this meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Barnes, Clucas, McCloskey and Wheeler.

Councillor Fisher declared a prejudicial interest in item 14/01043/FUL 102 Mandarin Way, in that he would be speaking on behalf of the applicant as the councillor for this ward.

Councillor Colin Hay declared a prejudicial interest in item14/00739/FUL Telford House, being a member of Cheltenham Borough Homes.

Councillor Baker declared that due to a prior interest in item 13/02174/FUL 86 Cirencester Road, as he would be speaking in his capacity as ward councillor, but would then leave the Chamber for that item.

Councillor Sudbury declared a personal interest in item 13/02174/FUL 86 Cirencester Road being a county councillor representing that ward.

Councillor Colin Hay declared a personal interest in item 13/02174/FUL 86 Cirencester Road, as a personal friend of Councillor Baker who had objected to the application prior to becoming a Councillor of the Council.

There were no public questions.

Resolved, that the minutes of the last meeting held on 19 June 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lucy White, introduced the report regarding the proposal to erect a new convenience store (A1) with associated parking, following demolition of all existing buildings on the site. Landscaping, replacement boundary treatment and alterations to the existing access were also proposed. The application was before Committee at the request of former Councillor Penny Hall.

Public speaking :

Mr Russell Grimshaw, in objection

Mr Grimshaw quoted that the NPPF stated that it was important to “recognise village centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality”. He explained that NISA, Coop and Budgens were the anchor stores in that part of Charlton Kings and their loss would threaten the viability of other independent businesses in those centres. The loss of Budgens would include losing the last Post Office. The DPDS report confirmed that NISA would close as a result of this application and the Coop was not at risk in the short term. He said that the planning fallback position of the site was not the the petrol filling station which was some 18 years ago but a new and used car sales operation. Little weight should therefore be given to this consideration. The comparison in terms of traffic flows was in his view therefore misleading and they should be compared to the current hand car washing facility or in his view the correct fall back position.

Mr Grimshaw highlighted that adherence to and enforcement of the Delivery Management Plan (DMP) was critical and he quoted examples where similar stores did not manage or coordinate their deliveries. He raised the issue of staff parking in Church Piece and the surrounding residential streets which would result in disturbance, obstruction, traffic congestion and loss of amenity to residents. The DMP stated that deliveries would not be timed to coincide and the public would not park in the loading bay. He gave the example of a store in Tuffley where a car had parked in the loading bay with a delivery lorry waiting behind it and a further lorry unloading in the road.

Mr Grimshaw also made reference to the fact that there had been no assessment of the use of the ATM.

The objector then raised the issue of noise and questioned the methodology used by the Hann Tucker Noise Assessment.

In conclusion Mr Grimshaw said the proposal would increase traffic flows and congestion and local residents would suffer loss of amenity with intrusive noise from the increased hours of operation, parking, congestion and obstruction. The character of the village would be in his view irrevocably damaged with the loss of one or more of the existing convenience stores and reduced viability of the surrounding independent retailers. He believed there would be no nett economic gain to the area.

Mr Giles Brockbank, applicant’s adviser, in support

Mr Brockbank recognised that this application was before members due to local objection to the scheme.  He asked Planning Committee members to consider the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Councillor Colin Hay left the Chamber for this item.

Senior Planning Officer, Martin Chandler, introduced the report proposing the replacement of soil/waste pipes to the external rear elevation of Telford House and explained the matter had to come to committee as Cheltenham Borough Council was the applicant.  The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

11 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Senior Planning Officer, Martin Chandler, introduced the report regarding the variation of condition 36 on planning permission 10/00252/FUL to extend the opening/closing times of the ASDA foodstore and petrol station.  The update to the officer report outlined the proposed new operating hours of the supermarket and petrol station to open one hour earlier and to close one hour later, this being 6 am to midnight Monday to Saturday, 10 am to 4pm for the food store on Sundays and 8am to 8pm for the petrol station on Sundays.  The officer stated that this was fully compliant with local plan policy CP4 to limit disturbance to neighbouring residents during unsocial hours and therefore recommended approval to the variation on operating hours.

Councillor Fletcher questioned the timing of the noise impact survey which was carried out over a Sunday night and which was not a typical trading day and Councillor Thornton asked if any noise complaints had been received. 

The Planning Officer reported that although there had been some complaints to the store itself, no noise complaints had been reported to the council’s Environmental Health Officers.  It was also explained that the noise analysis survey was carried out along best practice guidelines which were difficult to go against.  The officer stated that additional noise generated by cars parking after 11pm would be minimal as the number of customers would also be minimal and thus parking would be possible near to the entrance to the store, thus avoiding disturbance to nearby neighbours.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

Senior Planning Officer, Lucy White, introduced the report regarding a two storey side and single storey rear extension which had previously received planning permission, however the applicant now wished to add a lean to roof instead of the formerly approved flat roof.   The Officer explained that the previous application had been approved subject to a reduction in size to reduce the impact on the neighbour and with a flat roof on the single storey extension.  The applicant now wished to re-instate the lean-to roof with roof lights over the single storey element at the side and rear of the property.  Officers considered that any additional harm caused by the slight increase in height of the single storey extension of 300mm would be minimal and was not sufficient to warrant refusal of this application.  Therefore the officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

Public Speaking:

Clare Williams in support of the application

The applicant Clare Williams stated that they had resubmitted the plans still retaining the permitted footprint, layout and scale of the extensions, but proposing a pitched tiled roof rear extension instead of a flat roof.   In her opinion, a tiled roof was more sustainable and would last in excess of 50 years, whereas a felt flat roof would only last 10-20 years.  A tiled roof was also more in keeping with the main roof of the house and the rest of the row of houses.  The applicant pointed out that out of the 23 houses in their row, 6 had pitched tiled rear extensions and only 4 had flat roof extensions, with a further 6 having pitched roof conservatories.

Member debate

Members questioned the light impact on the neighbours with the increase of 300mm in the height of the pitch and whether it passed the light test.  The planning officer replied that a second light test had not been carried out as it was felt that a 300mm increase was not substantial enough to result in any significant extra loss of light to the neighbours.

One member favoured the proposed change stating that the angle of a pitched roof could almost improve the light situation, as opposed to the previous flat roof plan with velux windows and raised roof lights.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT

The Senior Planning Officer, Martin Chandler, introduced the report regarding a three storey side extension, having received a revised submission after two previous refusals in June 2013 and November 2013.  The officer pointed out the difference between the recently refused scheme and the one now proposed was a 500mm reduction in the width and depth of the extension at first and second floor level and as such did not feel the alterations were sufficient enough to alleviate the impact on the neighbouring property at No.5.  The application had been brought back to committee as the request of Cllr Jordan. The officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Public speaking:

Mr Ralph Staelens, applicant, in support

In support of his application Mr Staelens told the committee that he had lived at 4 Keynsham Bank for 6 years, in an attractive three storey town house property in a terrace of four houses set back from the London Road.  There was a wide path and side yard with tall trees to the right.   The interior had small rooms and a central staircase which was restrictive and two bedrooms on the third floor that were used and thus prevented family from staying.  In addition, there was no sun in the side yard due to the tall trees, but morning sun at the back and sun at the front in the afternoon.

A further concern of his was security, having had several burglaries during the past 6 years with the property being accessed from back via the side wall.

His proposal was for a sympathetic three storey side extension with additional bedroom and family bathroom on the third storey, dining room/family room on the second storey and a garage and utility room on the ground floor.  This would address the bedroom situation and security.

The applicant also felt that the present 2 storey premises gave an unbalanced look, whilst a 3 storey premises would give a pleasing visual aspect.

The neighbour at 5 Keynsham Road who was objecting was not present but had submitted a letter.

Member debate

Councillor Stennett indicated that he could not see a problem with the extension and that with the hedge and trees at the side, the effect of the extension on the neighbour’s patio would be negligible.  It was also further away than the other houses.  He also agreed with the two story imbalance.  Councillor Stennett moved to permit the application.

Councillor Chard was also in favour of the application, as from the planning view inspection he felt there was plenty of room.

Councillor Seacome recognised there would be an impact on the neighbouring house and commented that the four houses were built as a unit and by adding an extension it would destroy the symmetry of those four houses and aesthetically it would not work.

Councillor Hay did not favour permitting the application on grounds of the light impact and failing the light test as well as its close proximity to the neighbouring house.  In addition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Senior Planning Officer, Lucy White, introduced the report regarding the erection of two storey side and single storey front extensions, wood burner flue in roof of proposed two storey extension and velux window in front roof slope of main dwelling.  The previous application for a two story side extension had been granted in April on submission of revised drawings showing a reduction in width and depth.  The applicant had now submitted plans for a single storey pitched roof extension, which extended the front elevation of the main dwelling by 2.6 metres.  Furthermore the characteristics of Mandarin Way were open plan in nature, and this would detract from the overall appearance of the area as the proposed development almost doubled the footprint of the property. 

This application was put to the committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, however the officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

Public Speaking:

Mr K Taylor, applicant, in support

Mr Taylor told the committee that he had moved into the house in 1972 when it was built and had paid an extra £200 for the land at the side.  In 1982 he had applied to Tewkesbury Borough Council to build an extension which included wheelchair access, but had not carried out the work.  In his previous application to this planning committee, he had reduced the area of the extension from 12.25 sq m to 10.2 sq m., but now this was no longer sufficient as, due to various operations and medical needs, he required sleeping accommodation downstairs and wheelchair access.  Mr Taylor thanked Councillor Fisher for his support and reiterated that all he requested was a downstairs bedroom.

Councillor Bernard Fisher, friend of applicant, in support

Councillor Fisher spoke in support of this application, advocating that we all live longer and with an ageing population Mr Taylor was trying to make provision for this, with a single storey downstairs bedroom built on the land he had bought to the side of his house.  Councillor Fisher had issues with the refusal reasons cited.  The row of dwellings were not identical with two detached houses, four dormer roofs, six flat fronted, two with porches and the line of the row was staggered.  The extension would not cause harm to the architectural integrity of the building or the unacceptable erosion of open space around the existing building as outlined in CP7. Councillor Fisher also highlighted that the existing hedge which can be conditioned and which is necessary for privacy would conceal the single story extension.

Finally no objections from neighbours had been received.

Councillor Fisher then left the Chamber for this item.

Member debate

Councillor Stennett agreed with Councillor Fisher’s comments.  He concurred that there would be minimal effect on the neighbourhood and with no objections having been received, Councillor Stennett moved to permit the application.

Other members also favoured permitting the application on the grounds that the house was at the end of a row, tucked away in a corner with land dropping away at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Senior Planning Office, Lucy White, introduced the report regarding the rendering of the rear two storey wing and increase in height of the rear boundary fence from 1.8 metres to 2.5 metres.  This matter had come before committee as a member of the Built Environment team lived at the application site.  The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal.

The Officer reported that the proposed rendering of the two storey rear service wing in white painted smooth render was considered acceptable, as the wing was concealed from view by the main two storey element and this section of the building would remain as red brick, and thus the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area would be minimal.

The proposed increase in height to 2.5 metres of the rear boundary fence was also acceptable and would prevent direct overlooking into the rear of the application site and into the property at the rear of the application site.

Members were generally in support of this application, with no further questions.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

One Legal Solicitor, Cheryl Lester, said that three nominations had been required from the planning committee for the Planning Code of Conduct working group.  This working group consisted of three members of planning and three members of Standards committee.  The former members from Planning had been Councillors Thornton, Garnham and Coleman and replacements were needed for Councillors Garnham and Coleman.  Councillor Fisher confirmed that Councillor Barnes as the newly appointed chair of planning had agreed to be nominated as a member, and the Solicitor thus requested another nomination.  It was further pointed out that the matter was urgent as it was intended that a revised protocol be produced by September/October.  Councillor Stennett proposed Councillor Chard.

Resolved, that Councillors Barnes and Chard be appointed to the Planning Code of Conduct Working group along with Councillor Thornton.