Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

44.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors Hobley and Nelson. 

 

45.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

Regarding 16/01597/FUL 6 Wards Road, NJ explained that although the applicant is known to most of Cheltenham’s LibDems, that in itself doesn’t preclude them from taking part in the debate.  Members should ask themselves whether they consider themselves close friends of the applicant, in which case they should declare a prejudicial interest; it is up to each individual member to decide on this. LibDem Members agreed en bloc that they all have a personal but not prejudicial interest in this application. 

 

16/01546/FUL 146-48 Bath Road

Councillor Oliver – has a personal and prejudicial interest; the applicant signed his nomination papers, and he has been a customer for many years.  Will speak on the applicant’s behalf in support of the application, then leave the chamber.

 

Councillor Hay – personal – knows the applicant, gets his hair cut there.

 

16/01180/FUL Charlton Kings Hotel, Cirencester Road

Councillor Lillywhite – could be a perceived prejudicial interest here – will therefore leave the chamber.

 

46.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Barnes mentioned that there were very few Members present on Planning View this month.

 

i.              Councillor Savage – Charlton Kings Hotel

ii.             Councillor Lillywhite – 6 Wards Road; 146-48 Bath Road; Burma Avenue

iii.            Councillor Sudbury – has informally visited 6 Wards Road and 146-48 Bath Road

iv.           Councillor Baker – visited 45 Whitethorn Drive on previous Planning View; has visited Charlton Kings Hotel

v.            Councillor Paul McCloskey – drives over Cudnalls Bridge every day; has also visited 6 Wards Road, and knows Charlton Kings Hotel.

 

47.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

 

48.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 140 KB

Minutes:

5. Minutes of last meeting

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd September 2016 be approved and signed as a true record with the following correction:

 

Application Number:

16/01203/FUL

Location:

332 London Road, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham

 

Page 10, public speaking

The planning officer considers the annex is being shoehorned into the site with limited space between it and the main house, but would draw Members’ attention to 228 282 London Road, where two large 4-bedroomed dwellings are to replace one single house, with  just 1.8m between them and limited garden and drive access. 

 

5i.  Matters arising

Councillor Barnes has asked Ullin Jodah McStea, Heritage and Conservation Officer, whether the proposed lamps at the Cenotaph will be lit; she confirmed that they will be viable lights.  

 

49.

Planning/Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent/Advertisement Applications, Applications for Lawful Development Certificate and Tree related applications – see Main Schedule

50.

16/01597/FUL 6 Wards Road pdf icon PDF 152 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01597/FUL

Location:

6 Wards Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Proposed erection of a wheelchair lift at the front of the property and relocation of front door

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

CS introduced the application as above, saying it is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor McKinlay, due to the special circumstances.  While the needs of the applicant are acknowledged, officers feel that the proposal will be harmful to the existing property and surrounding area, hence the recommendation to refuse. 

 

Public Speaking:

Councillor  McKinlay, ward councillor, in support

As CS has said, asked for this application to come to Committee for consideration as, under delegated authority, it would have been refused on policy CP7.  Wearing his other hat, as cabinet member with responsibility for the built environment, would have to say that is the correct decision on policy grounds.  However, feels that the particular circumstances of this case mean that we should make an exception to the rule - members will have read that the applicant’s wife has a medical condition which has prompted this planning application.  In normal circumstances, where a proposed addition to a property will have an obvious visual impact on the road, we would have objections from neighbours, but in this case, there are none.  All neighbours have verbally told the applicant that they are in favour of the proposal, and those at Nos. 2 and 8 have written letters of support.  This indicates the way the proposal is viewed in the street.  One of the pictures shows the proposal as a large black tube clad in reflective black glass – this was chosen to reflect the environment better than anything else, but the applicant is happy to clad it in whatever material the Committee may think appropriate.  The applicant has also agreed to remove the lift before the property is sold or when it is no longer used – it is not a permanent structure. 

 

The officer report acknowledges the significant benefits of installing the lift on the outside – it will not reduce the available floor space inside and will be fully reversible – but have made an on-balance recommendation on account of the harm it will do to the street scene, policy considerations, and its obtrusive design.  However, as the neighbours do not object, and the lift is required for the clear purpose of allowing the applicant to continue living in the family home, the Committee should used its discretion in relation to this application.  Personally feels that enforcing CP7 in this instance would be the wrong decision. 

 

Member debate:

HM:  is pleased to hear AM say that the applicant is prepared to consider other materials for cladding, as this is the real nub of the issue.  If Members are minded to approve the application, can this be a condition – that alternative cladding material be submitted, to be approved by officers?

 

AL:  there was mention in the report that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

51.

16/01180/FUL Charlton Kings Hotel, London Road pdf icon PDF 254 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Councillor Lillywhite left the Chamber for the duration of the following discussion.

 

Application Number:

16/01180/FUL

Location:

Charlton Kings Hotel, London Road

Proposal:

Construction of a two-storey hotel extension comprising eighteen (total) additional bedroom suites, along with associated external landscaping and car parking alterations. The scheme also includes minor alterations to the existing hotel, comprising the demolition of existing conservatory and single storey side extension, and replacement with new single storey extension.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

11

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application as above.  There will be a net gain of 18 rooms.  The scheme has been amended during the application process, taking into account neighbours’ concerns about loss of amenity.  The hotel is situated in a prominent location in the AONB, and is at Committee at the request of Councillor Helen McCloskey on account of concerns about the impact on neighbouring amenity.  The recommendation is to permit, with conditions.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Chris Gray, agent, in support

There are a few areas of the application which need to be emphasised.  Firstly, the application site had several challenges:  AONB, protected trees, London Road, impact on neighbouring properties.  The applicant entered into pre-app discussions to address neighbours’ concerns, with several options being considered, and ultimately agreed that the eastern boundary was the best place to develop – with natural landscape, avoiding over-development on the main road, and with a right of way track between the hotel and Woodgate Drive to ensure good separation.  Regarding functions, the pre-app proposed additional bedroom suites and a function room for weddings, business conferences etc, on the eastern boundary, but as a result of neighbour concerns about noise, overspill and parking, the function room has now been omitted from the proposal, leaving the application for additional bedrooms and upgraded guest facilities well away from residential properties.  There will be sufficient guest parking on site.  Regarding scale and massing, the footprint has been reduced, and the upper storey windows will have fully obscure glass and be fixed, to avoid any concerns about overlooking. 

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  how are comments from the trees officer and landscape architect to be addressed?

 

SW:  is disappointed he was not able to be on Planning View for this.  Has two issues: one, the very large tree on the roadway – trees officers do not have any issue but it seems close to the road, and would therefore like reinforcement.  Secondly, this proposal is listed as an extension but in fact it is a whole new building in the AONB.  The extension is as big as the original building.  This is a cause for concern, although does not want to hamper business.

 

HM:  as PB has said, would like to hear what officers have to say about removal of trees, and the requirements under the wildlife and countryside act.  Do conditions include that provision?

 

MJC, in response:

-       will do best to answer questions – the case officer is unwell;

-       to PB, the trees  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.

16/01283/FUL 45 Whitethorn Drive pdf icon PDF 153 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01283/FUL

Location:

45 Whitethorn Drive, Prestbury

Proposal:

Proposed two storey side and rear extension

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

4

Update Report:

None

 

BH introduced the application as above, at Planning Committee because the Parish Council feels it will have an overbearing impact on neighbouring property.  The applicant has changed the roof from gable to hip, and officers do not feel that the impact will be overbearing.  The recommendation is therefore to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr and Mrs Simpson, neighbours, in objection

Mrs Simpson:

Has lived happily in Whitethorn Drive for 31 years, but considers the proposed extension next door to be overbearing, resulting in loss of sunlight and an oppressive structure looming over their patio.  The proposal is out of proportion to the house and garden.  Three houses on the estate have had extensions, one of which is 26foot in length, and if a similar scheme was proposed here, would have no objection.  The proposed kitchen window will be just four feet from the boundary, with resultant noise and smells affecting their enjoyment of the patio.  The extension is overbearing and sky-blocking, and should be scaled down.

Mr Simpson:

The objections to this application are all relate to matters of well-being and quality of life.  Recently had a new patio extension, including level access and ramps to allow easy wheelchair access.  Is very concerned about possible damage  as a result of vibro-compaction piling, and would like to insist that the owners of Number 45 should issue a notice regarding the Party all Act of 1996, Section 6

 

Mr Walker, applicant, in support

He and his family love living in Prestbury; his children attend the local school, and as they hope to remain here long term, would like to improve their living space.  The upstairs plans have been changed so that all rooms face the garden.  The footprint is only increased by 10%.  Regarding loss of light to the neighbouring property, the proposal passes the light test and will not make a significant difference to the light next door.  With the fence, trellis, summer house, and tree, the neighbour currently has no view across the garden.  Agreed the fencing with the neighbour, who subsequently added the trellis.  The extension will add to privacy, and will not obscure anyview of Cleeve Hill.  Style-wise, the proposal blends with the existing design, and is similar to other extension on the estate.  Regarding subsidence, takes this issue very seriously and has taken professional advice; will seek and comply with the Party Wall Act.

 

Member debate:

PT:  the neighbour mentioned piling; where does that come into this application?

 

PB:  requests clarity regarding the kitchen window and whether or not it will overlook the neighbouring property.

 

SW:  regarding piling, this may well be needed – officers will know – but presumably there are stringent guidelines if damage is caused by the piling – the applicant will be obliged to make good?

 

BH, in response:

-       regarding piling,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

53.

16/01284/LBC Cudnalls Bridge, Cirencester Road pdf icon PDF 150 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

 

Application Number:

16/01284/LBC

Location:

Cudnalls Bridge, Cirencester Road, Charlton Kings

Proposal:

Reinstate bridge parapet, pilaster and approach wall following partial damage

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Grant

Committee Decision:

Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

Officer update

 

MJC said this is a county council application for repair works to Cudnall Bridge, following a recent incident where  a vehicle collided into it.  It is in a conservation area, and the work has been assessed accordingly and considered acceptable.  As Members on Planning View are aware, the work has already been carried out, and the blue update refers to Members’ concerns about the quality of the finish of that work.  Officers will ask that it is redone, with the render more appropriate and improving the juncture to the pier.  This will be requested if permission is granted.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

Member debate:

KS:  is concerned about the issue of the finish, and whether Gloucestershire Highways will actually re-do the work.  Does not have much faith that it will be done. 

 

HM:  notes that Condition 1 requires the work to be completed in five years; understood that a three-year limit was normal now.

 

MJC, in response:

-       listed building consents differ from ordinary planning permissions in this respect – they have different time frames on account of coming under different acts.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant

13 in support

1 abstention

GRANT

 

54.

16/01545/FUL Former Garage Site, Burma Avenue - DEFERRED

Minutes:

Application Number:

16/01545/FUL

Location:

Former Garage Site, Burma Avenue, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Demolition of retained garages.  Re-laying of tarmac over the damage surface of the site.  Marking of car parking bays.  Size to be a minimum of 2.4m x 4.8m each bay (retrospective)

 

DEFERRED

 

55.

16/01546/FUL 148 Bath Road pdf icon PDF 225 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Application Number:

16/01546/FUL

Location:

146-48 Bath Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Provision of glazed balustrade to front elevation

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

10

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application  as above.  This is a prominent location in the conservation area, and a positive building as identified on the townscape map.  Officers consider the balustrade is harmful to the building, not outweighed by the public benefit. It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, on behalf of the applicant.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Councillor Oliver, in support

Is speaking on behalf of the applicant, who was unaware of the meeting taking place and is unable to attend at the last minute.  The applicant owns Andy’s Hairdresser in Bath Road; it was run by his father before him, and has been trading for 30 years, a well-known local business.  Local people take pride in this vibrant area of the town, and in 2014, planning permission was granted to create flats above 146-148 Bath Road.  As part of that development, No 146 installed a glass balustrade, which is the subject of this planning application.  Officers object to it on account of the planning history, the design, and the impact on the conservation area, believing it to be not in keeping with the street scene.  Has lived in Cheltenham all his life, shopped in Bath Road for many years, and appreciates the eclectic mix of shops and buildings there.  Can remember when 150-156 Bath Road was a garage.  Regarding this application, cannot unsee what has been seen; the balustrade is already in situ, as illustrated by the picture.  It is fairly restricted to view  - can only be seen clearly from across the road – and makes the area look good.  There are ten representations from Bath Road traders whose view it is, and they all support the application.  Considers that this proposal actually improves the area, and therefore offers it his full support.

 

 

Councillor Oliver then left the Chamber for this debate

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  when he first saw this proposal, thought it was too modern and not in keeping with the area.  Did not realise that the picture was not an artist’s impression of what the balustrade would look like if installed but an actual picture of how it looks in situ.  Has never noticed it – which suggests that the harm must therefore be minimal.  Will listen to what other Members have to say and whether they feel that this is okay or something less modern may be more appropriate, but cannot feel that the harm it does in that great.

 

KS:  asked for this application to go to Committee.  Goes to Bath Road a lot, and never noticed the balustrade.  Usually notices everything!  Cannot therefore think that it is particularly intrusive or damaging to the area.  It looks modern, but the shops there are a redevelopment of the former garage site.  The Indian restaurant further along Bath Road has a very colourful shop  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

56.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.